Full text of "The rule of faith and the doctrine of inspiration"

See other formats

Till: RULF OF FAITH

AND THE

DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

THE CAREY LECTURES I- OR 1884..

ROBERT WATTS, D.D.,

J'KMATIC THE >1.O(;Y IN THK ASSEM I'.I.v's O >l.l.K(',K, H K L '•" A s T.

IIODDER AND STOUOHTOX,
27, TATHRN'OSTKR Ko\V.

V.IXJCCLXXXV.

DEUTERONOMY xviii. 18.

"On tyw t^ t[.ta\'TOi> oi'K tXdXijffa' a\\' l> Trkfi^aQ pi 7rar//(», ayro
oi tiToXiyr cifwKi, rt tiTTit) Kcii Tt XaXijffdJ. — JOHN xii. 49.

"A Kfli XaXovjUff, o('/c iv Ci^cucrolg a.v9p(uTrivt)£ oofyiav Xoyoic;,
aXX' h> tifctKTolc Ili'fi'juarof, Trrfn/^arj/coT^ Tri'tVfiaTiKa. ffvytepivovrff.

— I CoRixiiiiANS ii. 13.

Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Limited, London and Aylesbury.

EXTRACT FROM THE CAREY TRUST
DEED.

r I ^ 1 1 1 S important Foundation has been established
*- and endowed by John Carey, Esq., of Rarity
Cottage, Toome, in the county of Antrim, Ireland,
as the Trust Deed tcstificr., " from a love of Literature
and Learning and a desire to promote the interests
of Religion and Morality." For this purpose he has
granted to a Board of Trustees resident in Dorry,
and to their heirs and assigns for ever, a biennial
sum, or rent charge, of one hundred pounds sterling,
to be charged upon, and payable of, certain lands,
farms, messuages, hereditaments, and ground rents,
described in said Trust Deed. The Lectureship
is biennial, and is connected with the Assembly's
College, Belfast, and the Magee College, Londonderry.
For the administration of the Foundation, the Trust
Deed provides two electing Boards, one entitled the
Deny, and the other the Belfast, electing Board
To these Boards pertains, alternately, the right ot
selecting a Lecturer — a right to be exercised by

vi EXTRACT FROM THE CAREY TRUST DEED.

each Board every fourth year. The Derry electing
Board consists of the Trustees for the time being of
the Magee College, Londonderry, the Professors for
the time being of said Magec College, who shall
be members of the Faculty of said College, the
Moderator for the time being of the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the
Clerk for the time being of said General Assembly,
and the Convener for the time being of the Magee
College Committee.

The Belfast electing Board is similarly constituted,
with one exception, viz., that the Clerk of the
General Assembly, instead of a Secretary chosen by
the Board, is appointed Convener of the said Board.
It is further provided, that " neither of the said
electing Boards shall be limited or fettered in any
way in the choice of the person who shall from time
to time hold the Carey Lectureship, save and except
that no person who has already once held the said
Lectureship and received the salary, shall be eligible
to hold the said Lectureship a second time."

The range of subjects specified in the Trust Deed,
out of which the Lecturer elect shall be at liberty
to choose his theme, is very extensive. The Deed
provides that he shall be at liberty to choose any
" Theological, Geological, Biological, Anthropological,
Philosophical, Religious, Moral, or Social question
or questions of general interest and pressing im
portance." It is also provided that "both in the

EX 1RACT 1-ROM THE CAREY TRUST DEED.

selecting and approving of the selection of the subjects
to be delivered under this Trust, due regard shall be
had to the state of Religious, Ethical, and Philoso
phical speculation in Christian Countries, . . . also to
the progress and prospects of Christianity among
Heathen peoples, and the condition and tendencies
of Judaism, Mohammedanism, Hinduism, Brahmin-
ism, Buddhism, and the other great non-Christian
Religions of the World. And, as far as possible, the
subjects of-the Lectures shall be chosen with a view
to counteract some of the most prevailing and in
fluential forms of speculative error among Christian
communities, or to point out the obstacles to the
spread of Christianity among Heathen and other
non-Christian peoples, or to illustrate the relations
of the Christian system to the great religious move
ments of the World."

It is further provided that "when ten successive
series of Lectures shall have been delivered under
this Trust by ten successive Lecturers duly appointed
as hereinbefore provided, such ten series, containing
in the whole at least sixty distinct Lectures, and
having been delivered at intervals of at least twenty
years, the Trustees of these presents shall, under the
discretion and with the assistance of the advice and
counsel of the two electing Boards hereinbefore
constituted, make provision for the publication of the
said ten series of Lectures, and shall apply to that
purpose all such funds arising from the proceeds of

EXTRACT FROM THE CAREY TRUST DEE!).

each Board every fourth year. The Derry electing
Board consists of the Trustees for the time being of
the Magee College, Londonderry, the Professors for
the time being of said Magce College, who shall
be members of the Faculty of said College, the
Moderator for the time being of the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the
Clerk for the time being of said General Assembly,
and the Convener for the time being of the Magee
College Committee.

EX'IRACT I- ROM THE CAREY TRUST DEED. vii

It is further provided that "when ten successive
scries of Lectures shall have been delivered under
this Trust by ten successive Lecturers duly appointed
as hereinbefore provided, such ten series, containing
in the whole at least sixty distinct Lectures, and
having been delivered at intervals of at least twenty
years, the Trustees of these presents shall, under the
discretion and with the assistance of the advice and
counsel of the two electing Boards hereinbefore
constituted, make provision for the publication of the
said ten series of Lectures, and shall apply to that
purpose all such funds arising from the proceeds of

EXTRACT FROM THE CAREY TRUST DEED.

the Rent Charge hereby created as may be in their
hands."

The present course is not published under this
provision, but in the exercise of a liberty granted in
the Deed of Trust and allowed by the founder, the
Lecturer making an independent arrangement with
the Publishers.

PREFACE.

r I ^ 1 1 K course of Lectures given to the public in
•*• this volume was delivered in Belfast during the
winter of 1884-5, under the provisions of the Carey
Lectureship. The object aimed at was the reasser-
tion and vindication of the immemorial doctrine of
the Church in regard to the Rule of Faith and its
relation to its Divine Author. The ground taken in
these Lectures is, that " the word of God, which is
contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we
may glorify and enjoy Him," and that these writings
have been given by inspiration of God, through the
agency of men who spake or wrote as they were
moved, or borne along, by the Holy Ghost, so that
the record is truly, and in the strictest sense of the
term, the word of God.

Such is the doctrine regarding this vital subject,
more or less clearly expressed by the Church

PREFACE.

throughout her history, and reaffirmed by the
Westminster Divines in an Assembly which might
well claim to represent the Theology of the Refor
mation and the Protestantism of Great Britain and
Ireland in the Seventeenth Century. From this
doctrine there have, since then, been several grave
departures both in Europe and America. Some
of these have originated in a desire to conciliate
opponents, whose aversion to the doctrine of a
Supernatural Revelation, it has been assumed, has
been either created, or intensified, by the strict
theory of Inspiration, which teaches that the agency
of the inspiring Spirit extended to the form as
well as the matter, to the language as well as the
ideas, of the Revelation.

These attempts at reconciliation, however, have
not only proved abortive as regards the class for
whose sake they have been made, but, beyond
question, have resulted in injury to the cause they
were designed to serve. It is matter of history that
they have given rise to false views of the nature and
effects of the Divine agency, throughout the entire
domains of Nature and of Grace. It has been found
that this species of Apologetics involves modifica
tions which are really compromises of the truth, and
that instead of winning men from their alienation,

PREFACE.

such apologies confirm them in the belief that the
claims of the Bible arc utterly indefensible.

Recent writers of this class of apologists have,
generally, laid claim to superior learning and high
attainments in Philosophy, and have spoken of the
time-honoured doctrine of Verbal Inspiration as
an antiquated dogma that has deservedly lost its
hold upon the learning and intelligence of the age.
So persistently have these claims to superior culture
and acquirements been put forward, that many have
taken the claimants at their own estimate, and have
concluded that all the learning and Philosophy are
on the side of the anti-verbalists, and that none,
save the unlearned and unphilosophical, could enter
tain the doctrine of a Plenary, Verbal Inspiration.
Such boasting is as baseless as it is vain. Great
attainments in Language and extensive acquaintance
with Literature are valuable acquisitions, but as
such accomplishments depend more upon memory
than upon judgment, they furnish no guarantee of
the soundness of the Critical conclusions reached by
their possessors. A man may have mastered many
languages, and may be acquainted with the entire
critical apparatus known to the scholarship of the
day, and ma}', at the same time, prove a most
untrustworthy guide in any department of know-

PREFACE.

ledge, whether sacred or secular. The work of the
linguist in its relation to Criticism is like the work
of the phenomenologist in its relation to Science, or
the work of the quarryman to that of the architect.
Its entire achievement may be the production of a
rudis indegestaque moles, a mass without form and
void, and destined so to abide until a mind gifted
with the requisite taste and judicial balance, shall
reduce the Chaos to a rational Cosmos. For these
latter qualifications, no linguistic attainments can
ever be accepted as a substitute. In view of the
constant assertion of exclusive Critical rights based
upon such attainments, it may not be out of place
to assure the simplest reader of the Bible that it is
not within the power of any Critic, however learned,
to point out a single doctrine within the scope of
the Analogy of the faith which is dependent upon
the mysteries of his science, or one which was not
known before his so-called science had existence.
Equally independent of this science is the great ques
tion discussed in the latter portion of this volume
— the question of Inspiration. While accurate
acquaintance with the original tongues in which the
Scriptures were at first written is a most important
aid in the investigation, it is nevertheless true, that
without any knowledge whatever of the originals, a

PREFACE.

believer, with the English Version in his hand, may
ascertain, infallibly, what the Scriptures teach on
this subject. It may be held as an unquestionable
truth that it is just as easy to find out, from any
extant translation of the Scriptures, what the true
doctrine of Inspiration is, as it is to find out any
other doctrine within the compass of Revelation.
There is no mystery about the process of inquiry.
The simple question is : " What do the Scriptures
teach ? " and the answer must be elicited by a fair
interpretation of those passages in which the sacred
writers inform us of the extent to which the Agency
of the inspiring Spirit reached. While the sacred
writers give us no information regarding the nature
of the Divine agency, in its operation upon their
minds, and while we cannot propound any doctrine
regarding the mode in which the Spirit actuated the
agents lie employed to communicate the Divine
will to men, it is idle to allege, as many do, that
the Scriptures do not furnish the material necessary
to formulate a doctrine of Inspiration. It is true
they teach no doctrine of the mode of the Spirit's
agency, but they do teach, both expressly and by
implication, a doctrine of results ; and that doctrine
is, that the Spirit so actuated the human agents as
to determine the language in which they gave

PKEFA CE.

expression to the truths and facts recalled, or com
municated in the first instance, to their minds.
Such is the doctrine, and it is as clearly revealed
in the sacred oracles as is the doctrine of Justification,
or Regeneration, or the Atonement. The Diode is a
mystery, as the mode of the Divine agency, in every
case, must ever be a mystery to finite minds ; but
the outcome of the actuating energy of the Holy
Spirit is one of the most clearly revealed truths
within the compass of the Divine Record.

To aid in the maintenance and defence of this
doctrine, and to establish, on the authority of the
written word, the true sources of an infallible
Rule of Faith, are the objects aimed at in this
volume. In prosecuting this task the method
adopted is what may be designated the Princetonian,
viz. — I. To prove that the doctrine advocated is
the doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. 2. To
show that the doctrine is in conformity with Chris
tian experience. 3. That it is sustained by the
testimony of genuine Science and sound Philosophy.
4. That the opposite is true of all opposing theories
—that they are unscriptural, contrary to Christian
experience, unscientific and unphilosophical. Such
was the method pursued by my venerated teacher,
Dr. Charles Hodge, of Princeton, New Jersey, to

PRI-.l-ACE.

whom I am largely indebted for whatever progress
I have made in the stud}' of the system of Divine
truth given back to the Church by the theologians
of the Reformation.

With the hope that the present discussion may
help to clear these vital subjects of misconceptions
and irrelevant issues, and contribute to the awaken
ing of a deeper reverence for the Holy Bible, these
Lectures are now given to a larger Christian public
and committed to the providence and grace of Him
whose name is the Word of God.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

LECTURE I.

THE SOI-RCKS OF INFORMATION IN REGARD TO THE RULE
OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

PACK

The test of our deductions from the light of nature . 2

Rationalism 3

The goal of Rationalistic theories .... 5
Remarks on first form of Rationalism .... 6
Rationalism inconsistent with Faith .... 7
Strictures on the second form of Rationalism . . 7
Human knowledge largely dependent on Faith . . 9
Province of Reason in matters of Faith ... 9
'\\~\v. Ju did um Contradictionis . . . . . i r
Christ's recognition of the rights of Reason . . -13
Reason recognised by the Holy Spirit . . . -15
Reason fallible yet responsible . . . . -17

LECTURE II.

Till. PROVINCE 01 THE SENSES IN MATTERS OF FAITH

Recognition of the Senses by Christ . . . 19

Professor Flint, Mr. Mill, and Professor Huxley on the

testimony of the Senses . . . . 21,20
Remarks on this phase of the theory . . . .21
Physical science dependent on the senses . . • -3

PAGE

Conditions under which the senses are to be trusted . 25

Mysticism . . . . . • • • .26

Attitude of Mysticism towards Revelation . • 27

How Mysticism diners from Illumination . • 29
The views of the (Junkers, or Friends, on the Inner

Light . .29

Doctrine of the Evangelical Quakers . • 31

Remarks upon this theory of an Inner Light . . 32

Proof Texts impertinent or inconclusive . . -33

Mysticism helpless in dealing with Lrrorists . . 35

The Romish Theory of the Rule of Lakh . . . 36

Romish position strictly defined . . . . -37

Romish extension of the Canon . . . . -39

Romish estimate of the Original Scriptures . . .40

Romish exaltation of the Vulgate . . . 41

Romish doctrine respecting Tradition . . -43

Romish arguments in support of Tradition . . -45

\rguments against the Romish Doctrine . . .46

I )octrines worth transmission worth recording . . 47

\ buses corrected by Scripture alone . . . -49

Pauline usage of the term Tradition . . . 51

Scripture the sole Patristic rule . . . . -53

Modern theory of development . . . . -55

Romish idea of the Church . . . . -57

Romish doctrinal variations . . . . -59

Decisions of Councils not common consent . . 61

Tradition not accessible to all 63

LKCTURK III.

ArrHOKITY OF THK CHURCH AS A TEACHF.R.

The seat of Infallibility ... 66

Romish arguments in support of this claim . . 66

TALK

Infallibility both promised ami conferred . . -67

Protestant replies to Romish arguments . . . 68

Argument stated syllogisticaHy . . . 69

Infallibility negatived by History . .71

All Church authority based on Scripture . . -73

The Protestant Doctrine of the Rule of Faith . . 75

Lutheran Relation to Tradition 77

Remarks on the Lutheran position . . . -77

Doctrine of the Reformed Church . . . '79

The Anglican Doctrine of the Rule of Faith . . So

Strictures on the Anglican doctrine . . . .81

Anglican doctrine and private judgment . . . 83

LFCTURF IV.

TMK PROTESTANT DOCTRINE OF THE RULE OF FAITH

(CONTINUED).

Short method with Romanists . . . . 87

Romish objections baseless and suicidal . . . 89

Scripture doctrine of Inspiration . . . . .90

Relation of the Word to Faith . . . . 9 1

Inspiration and Revelation . . . . . .92

Import of fooTTvevo-ros . ...... 93

Revelation and Inspiration -95

Inspiration and Illumination ... . 96

Inspiration extends to the Language employed . . 97

The Relation of Language to thought . . . . 99

Christ's estimate of Apostolic talents . . . 101

Extent of the Spirit's agency . 103

Verbal Inspiration and Pentecostal gifts . . 105

Inference from the character of the record . . 107

Testimony of Rousseau and Mill . 109
Argument from the inscrutablencss of the mysteries . i i i

Conditions under which the senses are to be trusted . 25

Mysticism . . . . . . • • .26

Attitude of Mysticism towards Revelation . • 21

How Mysticism differs from Illumination . . • 29
The views of the Hunkers, or Friends, on the Inner

Light -29

Doctrine of the Evangelical Quakers . . . - 31

Remarks upon this theory of an Inner Light . . 32

Proof Texts impertinent or inconclusive . . -33

Mysticism helpless in dealing with Krrorists . . 35

The Romish Theory of the Rule of Laith . . . 36

Romish position strictly defined . . . . -37

Romish extension of the Canon . . . . -39

Romish estimate of the Original Scriptures . . .40

Romish exaltation of the Vulgate . . . 41

Romish doctrine respecting Tradition . . -43

Romish arguments in support of Tradition . . -45

\rguments against the Romish Doctrine . . .46

Doctrines worth transmission worth recording . . 47

\buses corrected by Scripture alone . . 49

Pauline usage of the term Tradition . . . -51

Vripture the sole Patristic rule . . . . -53

Modern theory of development . . . . -55

Romish idea of the Church . . . . -57

Romish doctrinal variations . . -59

Decisions of Councils not common consent . 6r

Tradition not accessible to all 63

LECTURE III.

ArniOKITY OF THK CHURCH AS A TEACHER.

The seat of Infallibility .... 66

Romish arguments in support of this claim . . 66

CONTEXTS.

Infallibility both promised and conferred . . . 67

Protestant replies to Romish arguments . . . 68

Argument stated syllogisticaHy 69

Infallibility negatived by History . . . -7'

All Church authority based on Scripture . . • 7.>

The Protestant Doctrine of the Rule of Faith . . 75

Lutheran Relation to Tradition . . . . -77

Remarks on the Lutheran position . . . -77

Doctrine of the Reformed Church . . . • 79

The Anglican Doctrine of the Rule of Faith . . So

Strictures on the Anglican doctrine . . . .81

Anglican doctrine and private judgment . . . 83

LKCTURK IV.

THK J'KOTK.STANT DOCTRINE OF THE RULE OK FAITH
(CONTINUED).

Short method with Romanists . . . . . 87

Romish objections baseless and suicidal . . . 89

Scripture doctrine of Inspiration ... .90

Relation of the Word to Faith ... .91

Inspiration and Revelation . . . . . .92

Import of tfeoTrrcro-Tos . ... -93

Revelation and Inspiration .... -95

Inspiration and Illumination . . . 96

Inspiration extends to the Language employed . -97

The Relation of Language to thought. . 99

Christ's estimate of Apostolic talents . .101

Extent of the Spirit's agency . 103

Verbal Inspiration and Pentecostal gifts . . 105

Inference from the character of the record . .107

Testimony of Rousseau and Mill • '09
Argument from the inscrutableness of the mysteries . i i i

xx CONTENTS.

LECTURE V.

INSPIRATION OF CHRIST.

AGE

Christ and the Dcuteronomic Prophecy . . 15

Limitation of Christ as a Prophet . 1 7

Inference from the unction of Christ . . . 19

Apostolic estimate of the Inspiring Agency . . .20

Argument from i Cor. ii. . . . . . .21

Transmission as important as Revelation . . 23

Apostles equal to Old Testament Prophets . . 25

Inference from authority claimed . . . -27

Miracles negatived by false doctrine . . . .29

Inspiration of Mark and Luke proved . . 131

Prophetic rank of Mark and Luke . . . . 133

If inspired as preachers, much more as writers . . 135

LECTURE VI.

INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Argument from Matt. v. 17, 18 . . . . -137

The Testimony of Christ 137

Argument from John x. 33-36 139

2 Tim. iii. 16 examined .141

Testimony of the Apostles . . . . . .141

Verbal Inspiration proved from Gal. iii. 16 . . .143
Canon Farrar and the Talmudists . . . -145

Argument from i Peter i. 10-12 147

Argument from the task assigned the Prophets . -149

Argument from 2 Peter i. 16-21 151

Argument from manner of reference to Old Testament

Scriptures . . . . . . . .153

The ultimate question involved . . . . -155

CONTENTS.

Objections to the doctrine of a Plenary Verbal Inspiration 1 5 5
Rule determining the meaning of words . . . 157
flcoTTvevo-ros elsewhere explained . . . . -159
Apostles more than ordinary historians . . .161
Inference from supernatural revelation . . -163

LECTURE VII.

SOME OBJECTIONS ARISING FROM MISAPPREHENSIONS.

Argument from Spirit's agency in grace . . -165

Inspiration not dictation 167

Inspiration and the analogy of the faith . . .169
Coleridge's objection examined . . . . -171
The principle at issue fundamental . . . 173

Objections based on Pelagian principles . . . 175
Plenary Inspiration secures variety . . . . 177

Dr. Hill's objection examined 179

Peculiarities of writers predetermined . . . . iSr
Objections from variety of narration . . . -183
Alford's objection from the Inscription on the cross . 185
Central idea same in all the Evangelists . . .187
Objection from i Cor. vii. examined . . . .189
No command regarding things indifferent . . .191
Speaking by permission implies authority . . . 193
Uncertain in one case, uncertain in all ... 195
Objection from uncertainty unwarranted . . . 197
Apostolic counsel and Christian liberty . . . 199

LECTURE VIII.

INSPIRATION AND SCIENCE.

Verbal theory and scientific speculation . . .201
Science and the felicity of the language of Scrip'ure . 203

Scientific objections met by scientific progress . . 205
Verbal Inspiration and Biblical chronology . . . 207
Matthew's genealogical table ..... 209
Source of alleged discrepancies . . . . .211
Butler's solution invalidated ... . 213
The Canon completed in the Apostolic period . -215
Use and abuse of Butler's analogy . . . .217
Remarks on this Analogical Reasoning . . .217
Science proves perfection of God's works . . .219
Inference from solution of discrepancies . . .221
Ood may permit what He may not do ... 223
A gratuitous concession to Mr. Mill . . . .225
Prebendary Row confounds Inspiration with Revela
tion 227

Divine aid in acquisition conceded .... 229
Supernatural strengthening conceded . . . -231

LECTURE IX.
or.jp.cTiox i ROM FKKKDOM OF REFERENCE TO OLD

TESTA MKXT SCRI I'TURES.

Argument from inaccurate quotation .... 235
Freedom of the Spirit as an Author . . . -237
(leneral Remarks upon the foregoing objections . . 238
Theory drawn from discrepancies . . . • 2*9
Anti-verbal Method unphilosophical . . . .241
Remarks on this Induction ..... 242

Remarkable Instance of a defective Induction . . 243
Argument from Pentecostal gifts .... 245

Inference from the aid promised 247

Forensic defences gospel discourses .... 249
h defences imply Verbal Inspiration . .251

r.v .

Limited i)reniiss and universal conclusion . . • 25 S
Equivalents of "Thus suith the Lord "... 255

LKCTURK X.

THE ULTI.MATF. GROUND OF FAITH IN' TIIF. srKII'Tt'l1. F.S AS
THI. WORD OF GOD.

Lee's critique on Westminster doctrine . . . 259
Estimate of Westminster Divines in regard to external

testimony . . . . . . . .261

Position of Dr. Lee and Hooker proved unsrriptural . 263
Proper use of external testimony .... 265

The Word alone the Spirit's sword .... 267

The Revelation self-evidencing . . . . .269

Conclusion . . . . . .270

x.^ff/:^ -r. *,-./i ^".vrr

On thi* ;x/'.-it ?h/i V.ri;Aifin
hii^ th« ^irr» for ' /rrr.yjiv

'JUE RULE OF FAl'lH

which makes wise unto salvation, they teach that
the heavens declare the glory of God, and that
the earth showcth forth His hands' work, and that
the invisible things of Him from the creation of
the world are so clearly seen by the things that
arc made that the heathen are left without excuse
(Psalm xix. 1-7 and Rom. i. 20).

Nor is this revelation of God restricted to the
field of the astronomical array. The whole realms
<»f the organic and inorganic worlds, of matter and
of mind, bear witness to the existence and exercise
of a wisdom and power which transcend all human
estimate. Pre-eminent over all natural sources, of
the knowledge of God must be recognised the
moral constitution of man. Created in knowledge
and righteousness, the soul of man, even now in its
fallen estate, bears testimony to the moral character
of its Creator. External nature impresses the mind
with a sense of the majesty of God, but the moral
law, whose work is written in the heart, convinces
of sin, and makes men feel that He who is the
Author of their being is also their Lawgiver and
Judge.

Tin-: TEST OF OUR DEDUCTIONS FROM THE
LIGHT OF NATURE.

In our study of the book of Nature in all its
departments, it must be borne in mind that there
is no disclosure of the Divine attributes made therein

XA TIONALISAf.

which is not also made in the book of Revelation.
This clearly revealed fact warrants the conclusion
that all our interpretations of the book of Nature
are to be tested by the teachings of the Sacred
Scriptures. A doctrine deduced from the former,
which is not in harmony with the teaching of the
latter fairly interpreted, must be regarded as false.

In taking this ground, there is nothing claimed
for the Holy Scriptures which they do not claim
for themselves. They claim to be an infallible
Revelation of the Divine will on every subject of
which they treat, and claiming this, they necessarily
exclude all rival standards or tests of truth within
their own province. As the Author of the Bible is
also the Creator of the universe, it is certainly not
unreasonable that where He has given a deliverance
all counter-utterances should be rejected.

RATIONALISM.

Rationalism, claiming as it docs for human reason
pre-eminence over all other sources of knowledge,
sets itself in antagonism to all this, and either rejects
the claims of the Bible as a supernatural Revelation
altogether, or claims the prerogative of sitting in
judgment on its contents. Speaking of Calvinism.
Mr. Matthew Arnold says, " When Calvinism tells
us this, is it not talking about God just as if He
were a man in the next street, whose proceedings
Calvinism intimately knew and could give account

4 'HIE KULE OF FAITH.

of, could verify that account at any moment, and
enable us to verify it also ? It is true \vhcn the
scientific sense in us, tJic sense which seeks exact
knoidctlge, calls for that verification, Calvinism refers
us to St. Paul, from whom it professes to _ have got
this history of what it calls ' the covenant of redemp
tion.' Hut this is only pushing the difficulty a
stage further back, for if it is St. Paul and not
Calvinism that professes this exact acquaintance
with God and His dealings, the scientific sense
calls upon St. Paul to produce the facts by which
he verifies what lie says, and if he cannot produce
them, then it treats both St. Paul's assertion and
Calvinism's assertion after him as of no real conse
quence " (Dr. M. Arnold's "St. Paul and Protes
tantism," pp. i o, II). It were, of course, easy to
show that the Apostle, here criticised so irreverently
by this Oxford professor of poetry, has abundantly
established the doctrine, so unceremoniously de
nounced, by the most unquestionable facts in the his
tory of the Jewish and Gentile world ; and equally easy
to show from undeniable facts, that God still deals
with men on the same principles. But the object of
this reference is simply to point out to what lengths
of irreverence the spirit of Rationalism may lead.
It is true there arc Rationalists and Rationalists.
All to whom the designation is applied do not
^o the length indicated by Mr. Arnold. Some of
them admit that a Revelation has been made, and

THE GOAL OF RATIONALISTIC THEORIES.

that it is on record in the Scriptures ; but claiming,
as they do, that it is the prerogative of Reason to
sit in judgment upon this Record and determine
what is, and what is not, to be received, there does
not seem to be any very definite reason for a distinct
classification. Those who hold that Reason is the
measure by which the existing Revelation is to be
tested very soon pass into the category of those
who regard Reason as both the source and the
measure of all truth. The distinction, at most,
must be regarded as temporary and provisional,
and be looked upon as marking a stage in the
transition towards absolute scepticism.

The goal of Rationalism may be seen in the
following sketch by Theodore Parker :--" This
theory teaches that there is a natural supply for
spiritual as well as for corporeal wants ; that there
is" a connection between God and the soul, as be
tween light and the eye, sound and the ear, food and
the palate, truth and the intellect, beauty and the
imagination. And as we have bodily senses to lay
hold on matter and supply bodily wants, through
which we attain, naturally, all needed material
things, so we have spiritual faculties to la}' hold on
God and supply spiritual wants ; through them we
obtain all needed spiritual things." With such an
apparatus for the supply of his spiritual wants, of
course man has no need of any supernatural Reve
lation.

THE RULE OF FAITH.

and that Me is wiser than men, that His under
standing is above the understandings of the intelli
gences He has created, and that His knowledge
transcends ours, and it must be manifest that a
Revelation from such a Being may contain truths
on whose claims human Reason is incompetent to
sit in judgment. 3. On this theory salvation would
be limited to the wise and learned. As it is eternal
life to know God and Jesus Christ, whom He has
sent, and as, according to this theory, human Reason
must determine what is, and what is not, the true
knowledge of Gocl, none but men of mighty intellects
and high culture could decide in regard to the sum
of saving knowledge. The weaker a man's intellec
tual capacity, the more limited would be his creed.
It is scarcely necessary to observe that a theory
which involves the exclusion of the weak and the
foolish things of this world from the kingdom of
Heaven, and exalts the noble and the wise to heir-
ship, is in direct antagonism to the teachings of the
wrord of God. 4. Not only would the dimensions
of a man's creed and his obligation to believe vary
with his natural intellectual capacity, but the same
man with the same Revelation in his hand would be
warranted in rejecting some of its truths at one stage
of his intellectual progress, and be under obligation
to accept these same truths at a more advanced
stage. 5. Lastly, this theory is exposed to this
additional objection that it lays clown a condition of

KNOWLEDGE LARGELY DEPENDENT O.V FAITH, y

belief in regard to the truths of revelation which is
recognised in no other department of knowledge.
Men do not demand as the condition of their faith
in the revelations of science that science shall
propose nothing above their comprehension. The
faith of men (speaking generally), in the marvellous
discoveries of science, does not rest upon their
ability to verify scientific reports, but upon the
testimony of those whom they deem worthy of
confidence. Speaking of infinitesimal organisms
revealed by the microscope, Professor Huxley re
marked to his class that we must believe that there
are beyond these still minuter forms, which no mag
nifying power hitherto reached has been able to
disclose. With Huxley himself, in this instance,
faith rests upon probability ; in the case of others,
not scientists, who accept his conjecture, it rests
upon their confidence in his scientific sagacity.

PROVINCE OF REASON IN MATTERS OK FAITH.

Although Reason is neither the source nor the
standard of religious truth, it has, nevertheless, much
to do with the truths of Revelation. Irrational
beings could have nothing to do with the truths
revealed in the Bible. Throughout, the sacred
writings assume on the part of men the possession
of reason and conscience.

i. In the first place, man's reason is called into
exercise in the intellectual apprehension of the

THE RULE OF FAITH.

and that lie is wiser than men, that His under
standing is above the understandings of the intelli
gences lie has created, and that His knowledge
transcends ours, and it must be manifest that a
Revelation from such a Being may contain truths
on whose claims human Reason is incompetent to
sit in judgment. 3. On this theory salvation would
be limited to the wise and learned. As it is eternal
life to kno\v God and Jesus Christ, whom He has
sent, and as, according to this theory, human Reason
must determine what is, and what is not, the true
knowledge of God, none but men of mighty intellects
and high culture could decide in regard to the sum
of saving knowledge. The weaker a man's intellec
tual capacity, the more limited would be his creed.
It is scarcely necessary to observe that a theory
which involves the exclusion of the weak and the
foolish things of this world from the kingdom of
Heaven, and exalts the noble and the wise to heir-
ship, is in direct antagonism to the teachings of the
word of God. 4. Not only would the dimensions
of a man's creed and his obligation to believe vary
with his natural intellectual capacity, but the same
man with the same Revelation in his hand would be
warranted in rejecting some of its truths at one stage
of his intellectual progress, and be under obligation
to accept these same truths at a more advanced
stage. 5. Lastly, this theory is exposed to this
additional objection that it lays down a condition of

KNOWLEDGE LARGELY DEPENDENT O.V FAITH, y

belief in regard to the truths of revelation which is
recognised in no other department of knowledge.
Men do nol: demand as the condition of their faith
in the revelations of science that science shall
propose nothing above their comprehension. The
faith of men 'speaking generally), in the marvellous
discoveries of science, docs nut rest upon their
ability to verify scientific reports, but upon the
testimony of those whom they deem worthy of
confidence. Speaking of infinitesimal organisms
revealed by the microscope, Professor Huxley re
marked to his class that we must believe that there
are beyond these still minuter forms, which no mag
nifying power hitherto reached has been able to
disclose. \Yith Huxley himself, in this instance,
faith rests upon probability ; in the case of others,
not scientists, who accept his conjecture, it rests
upon their confidence in his scientific sagacity.

PKOVINCM OF R MASON IN MATTMRS OF FAITH.

i. In the first place, man's reason is called into
exercise in the intellectual apprehension of the

THE RULE OF FAITH.

object of faith. Without this exercise of our
rational powers there can be no faith, for faith
embraces as one of its essential elements assent to
the truth of some proposition. By the intellectual
apprehension of the truth propounded, however, is
not meant the comprehension of the truth in its
inherent logical consistency, and its harmony with
other related truths. This is not simply knowledge,
but understanding. The knowledge implied in
believing is simply the apprehension of the meaning
of the proposition believed. No one can be said to
believe a statement of whose import he is ignorant.
A man can be said to believe what he does not
understand, but he cannot be said to believe what he
does not know. We speak of knowing that a thing
is, and we speak of understanding hoiv it is. I
know that by a volition I can raise my arm, but how
it is that the motion follows the volition I understand
not. The former is empirical knowledge ; the latter
is philosophical knowledge. 'The latter is not neces
sary to faith ; the former is indispensable.

2. To Reason belongs also what theologians desig
nate & judicium contradictionis. Here it is necessary
to define clearly what is embraced under this ac
knowledged prerogative, as a Rationalist, taking
advantage of the concession to Reason of such a
prerogative, may think he is entitled to claim that
the friends of Revelation have taken the Rationalistic
ground, and have constituted Reason the standard

THE fUDICIUU CONTRADICTIONS. \\

by which all communications arc to be judged. To
prevent such assumption it is simply necessary to
state with exactness what is, and what is not,
embraced under this prerogative. The sphere of
judgment conceded under this designation is simply
the credibility of the contents of the Revelation ;
and by credibility is not meant the comprchensibility
of the doctrine, but its freedom from everything which
would tend to discredit it. The question before the
mind when it exercises this prerogative is simply
this : May the proposition be true ? The question
is not : Must it be true, or, Is it comprehensible, but,
Is it, or is it not, immoral, absurd, or impossible ? If
the communication claiming to be a Revelation from
God teach what is immoral, absurd, or impossible,
the Reason of man, in the exercise of an inalienable
right, rises up, and rejects it. If, however, it be
unembarrassed by these attributes, . right Reason
recognises it as credible. In giving this verdict
Reason docs not affirm that the doctrine is true. It
simply affirms that as it is not immoral, absurd, or
impossible, it may be true, and, therefore, may be
believed without violence to our rational nature.
Having, in the exercise of this prerogative, discovered
nothing fitted to discredit the professed Revelation,
the mind is ready to entertain the question of its
Divine authorship and to examine its credentials.

The statement now made of what is embraced
under this prerogative, is sufficient argument in sup-

THE RU-LE OF PAITH.

port of its claims. In considering the question
whether a given communication may have come from
God, the human mind cannot avoid the consideration
of the points specified. Constituted as \vc are — and
our constitution is not designed to be a source of
delusion — \vc can never regard as credible that which
is absurd, immoral, or impossible. It is true that
men often err in the exercise of this prerogative,
and accept, as Divine revelations, systems which
contain contradictory, absurd, and immoral doctrines ;
but this humiliating fact does not disprove the
existence of this prerogative : it simply proves the
liability of man to err in the exercise of his powers.
All men claim the right to sit in judgment upon a
professed Revelation, and no man professes to re
ceive, as a Revelation, a communication characterised
by absurdity or immorality, or which calls upon him
to accept what he regards as impossible.

3. The Scriptures recognise the right of Reason to
judge of the evidences wherewith their Divine authority
has been attested. The Divine messengers through

o o

whom the Revelation given in the Bible has been
communicated have been empowered to work miracles,
or gifted with knowledge which must have come
from God, in order to establish their claims as the
bearers of a Divine commission. In furnishing His
servants with these credentials God has manifestly
recognised it as one of the functions of Reason to
judge of them, and to decide upon their validity.

CHRIST'S RECOGNITION OF REASON. 1.5

Our Saviour took this ground when He told the
Jc\vs that " if He had not done among them miracles
which no other man ever did, they had not had
sin," and also when Pic upbraided the cities of
Galilee because that all the mighty works lie had
done among them had not convinced them of His
Messiahship. He had submitted to them abundant
evidence of His claims, and they had not examined
it as reasonable men. In other words, He recognises
the prerogative of Reason even where His own
commission is at stake, and condemns the men who
rejected Him for neglecting to exercise it, or for the
misuse of it in their treatment of His claims.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is Very ex
plicit on this point. It speaks of " the hcavcnlincss
of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the consent
of the parts, the scope of the whole, and the full
discovery it makes of the only way of salvation," as
among the evidences which move our minds to accept
the Scriptures as the word of God. Of course it is
implied in all this that the claims of the Revelation
have been subjected to examination in regard to all
these points, and that, as the result of such exami
nation, the mind has been persuaded, i.e. rationally
convinced, that it bears sufficient evidence of having
come forth from God.

It ought to be observed, however, that the ulti
mate ground on which the Westminster divines rest
our faith in the Scriptures as the word of God is

i4 THE RULE OF FAITIL

the testimony of the Spirit bearing witness in our
heart, by and with the word. As there is a positive
bias against the truths which give character to the
Bible as a Revelation from God, and a positive
blindness of the understanding in regard to spiritual
things, which render it impossible that a man in his
natural estate should receive or know them, so in the
provisions of the economy of grace there is a remedy
provided for the blindness by which the darkness of
the understanding is removed, and a remedy for the
alienation of the will by which the soul is made
willing in the day of Christ's kingly power. This
testimony of the Spirit, as the Westminster standards
teach, is not only by the word, but wiih it. There
is not only the testimony arising from the sub
jective conformity of the soul to the objective
standard exhibited in the word, but there is also
the concurrent testimony borne by the Spirit to the
truth of the word itself. Thus, throughout, the mind
is dealt with as rational. The Spirit in His regene
rating act does not set aside Reason, but, on the
contrary, renews it, and, having renewed it, addresses
Himself to it. The submission of the soul to God
is not a blind submission, nor is the reception of the
Divine Revelation and the Saviour it -offers an ir
rational act. The process of conversion is a process'
of persuasion, as well as a process of spiritual
transformation wrought by the omnipotent agency
•jf the Holy Spirit. There is, according to the

XEASOX RECOGNISED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. 15

representation of these confessional standards, a work
of the Spirit which embraces conviction, enlighten
ment of the mind in the knowledge of Christ, and
a persuading of the soul to embrace Him, as well
as a renewal of the will and the impartation of
spiritual strength. In a word, the Reason, as wel!
as the heart and conscience, is brought into exercise
when the Holy Spirit effectually calls the soul and
translates it into the kingdom of God's dear Son.

4. Reason having verified the Revelation as a
Divinely authenticated communication, has to do
with the interpretation of it. It judges of the im
port of its statements, and determines among con
flicting interpretations which is the true one. In the
exercise of this prerogative, we have the full warrant
of the Scriptures themselves, which urge upon us the
duty of searching them, and affirm our responsibility
. in regard to the doctrines we deduce from them. To
this tribunal, as we have seen already, our Saviour
submitted His own claims as the Messiah, and to •
the same arbitrament His apostles appealed in proof
of their teachings. Whether our Saviour reasoned
with the Jews or with His own disciples, He-
addressed arguments to their reason, and called
upon them to exercise it upon the testimony of
Moses and the prophets concerning Himself. And
what else was the scope of apostolic preaching but to
prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ ?
In fact, it is impossible for a rational being to

1 6 THE RULE OF FAITH.

receive, or know, a Revelation at all, without ex
ercising his reason. One revelation is to all
intents, purposes, and uses, the same as any other
until its contents are examined and its truths ap
prehended, that is until the Revelation has been
rationally considered. This apprehension is indis
pensable to our reaping any spiritual advantage
from the Revelation given us in the Bible, for know
ledge of its great essential fundamental truths is
one of the conditions of the salvation it. reveals.

5. But, as already intimated, Reason cannot rest
satisfied with isolated doctrinal deductions from
Scripture. It cannot avoid endeavouring to systema
tise and harmonise these deductions. It is just as
natural and as warrantable to classify our deduc
tions from the word of God as from His works,
and it is found, as a matter of fact, that all who
study either the word, or the works of God, do
actually classify their knowledge and endeavour
to present their conclusions in systematic form.
Reason, therefore, is exercised not only in judging
of, or ascertaining, the import of the Revelation,
but also in the adjustment and systematic ex
hibition of its doctrinal contents.

6. In the exercise of these prerogatives Reason is
neither infallible nor irresponsible. The Jews re
jected the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, though in
that rejection they were completing the accumulat
ing evidence whereby His Messiahship was estab-

REASON FALLIBLE YET RESPONSIBLE. 17

lished ; and many, in the present clay, reject the
Scriptures who pride themselves on their standing
as enlightened and reasonable men. The fallibi
lity of human reason, however, is no argument
against its use, for if the principle involved in such
argument were fully carried out, men must cease
to exercise their reason in any matter whatever,
whether sacred or secular. It is just as common
for men to err in the one department as in the other.
The only inference warranted in cither case is the
necessity of caution, and the necessity of observing
the laws of thought. No one ever thinks of any
other inference from the liability of man to err in
things secular, and there can be no reason assigned
for any other in relation to error within the sphere
of the sacred. The liability of Reason to err is in
no case regarded as warranting any authority,
whether sacred or secular, civil or ecclesiastical,
in attempting to dethrone Reason or suspend the
exercise of her high prerogatives. The Jews erred
in rejecting Christ, but their error is not ascribed
to the exercise of their reason. They are con
demned for not exercising their 'reason aright in
judging of His claims. The sin whereby they
provoked God, and brought down upon themselves
and upon their children the threatened curse, had
its origin in the abuse of reason in matters of
faith.

LECTURE II.

THE PROVINCE OF THE SENSES IN MATTERS
OF FAITH.

was, at first, a question between Protestants
and Romanists, and originated in connection
with the controversy respecting Transubstantiation.
In opposition to the alleged change of the bread and
wine into the body, soul, and Divinity of Christ, the
Reformers appealed to the senses of sight, touch, and
taste. To this the Romish theologians replied that
the testimony of the senses is not to be heard in the
Mysteries of Faith, inasmuch as these Mysteries are
above the senses, and faith consists in believing
what we do not see. Yes, the Reformers replied, it
is true that the senses are not to be heard in every
matter of faith, but it is not true that their testimony
is not to be admitted when they testify of things
sensible and corporeal, which come within their own
proper sphere. Within this sphere their testimony
is authoritative and ultimate, and from it they cannot
be excluded without doing violence to the constitu
tion of our own nature. Constituted as we are, we
must trust to the testimony of our senses, and our

RECOGNITION OF THE SENSES BY CHRIST. 19

doing so is one of the conditions of our progress
in knowledge. To distrust them were to arrest all
study of external nature and to cast a grave reflection
upon the Author of our being.

It is scarcely necessary to formally discuss this
question. The most cursory reader of the Scriptures
must be aware that both in the Old Testament and
the Xew, God has set the stamp of the most indubi
table recognition upon the bodily senses of mankind.
Through signs and wonders wrought before men,
lie has testified to the authoritative commission of
His Messengers. It is an unquestionable fact that
both our Saviour and His apostles appealed to the
senses in matters of faith of the highest importance.
The disciples were invited to' satisfy themselves in
regard to no less a matter than the resurrection of
Christ by the senses of sight and touch. To allay
their fears and correct their misapprehensions our
Saviour said to them : " Why. are ye troubled, and
why do doubts arise in your hearts ? Behold My
hands and My feet, that it is I Myself ; handle Me
and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye
see Me have. And when He had thus spoken He
showed them His hands and His feet " (Luke xxiv.
38-40). In like manner the angels who announced
His birth, ancl those who announced His resurrection,
appealed to the senses. By the sense of sight both
His birth and His resurrection were to be verified.
" He is not here, but is risen. Come, sec the place

20 THE RULE OF FAITH.

where lie lay." Besides, it must be manifest that
any argument which is of force against the testimony
of the senses in such matters must also be of force
against the testimony of the Apostles, for their
testimony rested, ultimately, upon the testimony of
their senses. They were witnesses " of what they
had heard, of what they had seen with their eyes, of
what they had looked upon, and their hands had
handled, of the Word of life" (i John i. i). These
and other like references prove conclusively that the
doctrine of Rome on this subject — a doctrine
obviously devised in defence of the doctrine of
Transubstantiatibn — is irreconcilable with the teach
ing of the sacred Scriptures.

BEARING OF THIS THEORY ox SCIENCE AND
PHILOSOPHY.

Professor Flint in his important treatise on Theism
(pp. i 10 — i 12) takes the ground that the senses are
not trustworthy witnesses, and .alleges that we
have no warrant for the assumption that external
objects arc what our senses testify. " Change our
senses," he says, " and the universe will be thereby
changed, everything in it becoming something other
than it was before, green perhaps red, the bitter
sweet, the loudest noise a gentle whisper, the hardest
substance soft." He endorses fully Mill's definition
of matter as " the permanent possibility of sensations,"
and affirms that " the collection of phenomena which

HUXLEY1 S ESTIMATE OF THE SEXSF.S.

we call the properties of matter is quite unlike the
phenomena of mind in this most important respect,
that whatever they may be, they are not what they
appear to be. A state of mind is what we feel it to
be ; a state of matter is certainly not what we seem
to ourselves to perceive it to be." On the preceding
page, Professor Flint had stated that " we have a
practical and relative knowledge of matter which is
both exact and trustworthy^ — a knowledge of its pro
perties from which we can' mathematically deduce a
multitude of remote consequences of an extremely pre
cise character — but we are hardly entitled to charac
terise as knowledge at all any of the views which
have been propounded as to what itis in itself."

This is simply what Professor Huxley avowed on
the same point in his memorable address on the
hypothesis that animals are automata, delivered
before the British Association at their meeting .in
Belfast in 1874. It is neither more nor less than
Berkeley's idealism over again, and is to be met by
the same arguments. The assumption is, that as all
our knowledge comes through the medium of con
sciousness, and as consciousness is a faculty of mind,
mind alone can be certainly known.

REMARKS ON THIS PHASE OF Till; THEORY.

I. Professor Flint seems to concede what is
scarcely consistent with the distinction he makes
between the knowledge we have of matter and the

22 THE RULE OF FAITH.

knowledge we have of mind. He admits that we
have a knowledge of the properties of matter from
which we cap mathematically deduce a multitude of
remote consequences of an extremely precise cha
racter. Now it is not too much to claim that all the
knowledge that we have of anything, either within us
or without us, is a knowledge of properties. It is just
as true of mind as it is of matter, that it is known to
us only in and by its properties, and it is by its pro
perties that we distinguish any one thing from any
other thing. In conceding that we know-the proper
ties of a thing, therefore, it is concluded that we
know the thing itself, for the properties are simply
the expression of what the thing is in its essential
nature, as properties and essence are inseparable.

But Professor Flint still further concedes that this
knowledge which we have of the properties of matter
furnishes the premises for mathematical conclusions
of an extremely precise character." Here then arises
a grave difficulty, a difficulty which seems to 'be
altogether insurmountable. How can that which
furnishes premises for mathematical deductions of an
extremely precise character be represented as not
being what it appears to be ? If "there be no cer
tainty in the premiss, there cannot be certainty in
the deduction, and if there be certainty in the con
clusion, it is owing to the certainty "in the premiss
and the mathematical accuracy of the process by
which the conclusion has been reached.

PHYSICAL SCIENCE DEPENDENT ON THE SENSES. 23

2. The theory is contrary to the convictions of
mankind. No man, except when under the fascina
tion of a theoretical speculation, believes it or
acts upon it. All men believe external objects to
be what they appear to be.

3. On this assumption the experimentalist in
pjiysics proceeds. Me judges of the properties of
the elements of matter by the way in which they
affect his senses. lie takes these elements to be
what they appear to him to be, and whether the
instrument employed be the retort, or the crucible,
or the spectroscope, it is but the means whereby the
properties of matter are made to affect the senses.
The instrument simply places the senses in the
proper position to bear testimony ; and they are the
sole witnesses in regard to the existence or character
of an external world. The mind has nothing else
to rely on, and if deceived by them, there is an end
to all certainty in physical investigations, and
science, so far as it deals with external nature, is
neither more nor less than nescience.

4. It is quite true that if our senses were changed,
our views of matter would be different ; but the
change in that case would certainly involve the
substitution of deceptive senses for the true. Our
senses may come far short of revealing to us all the
properties of matter ; but constituted as we arc, we
cannot but accept their testimony as trustworthy as
far as it goes. This we must do, or incur the guilt

24 TltE RULE OF FAITH.

of preferring against the Author of our being the
charge of devising, for the instruction of our minds
in the knowledge of His works, an apparatus which
is a source of perpetual deception. On this theory
the heavens could not be said to reveal the glory
of God, nor could it be said that the invisible
things of Him from the creation of the world are so
clearly revealed by the things that are seen that
those who do not apprehend His eternal power and
Godhead are left without excuse. This conclusion
is clearly just ; for the only witnesses of what the
things which are seen reveal, the only witnesses to
testify what are the elements of the glory which the
heavens declare, are, ultimately, our bodily senses.

5. And, finally, if the doctrine be true, it is of
force against the testimony of the senses altogether.
If valid at all, it is just as valid against the reli
ability of their testimony in regard to the existence
of an external world as it is against their trust
worthiness in regard to its phenomena, for it is only
through its phenomena that the external world
makes its existence known. If there is any matter
wherein the maxim, Falsus in nuo,falsus in omnibus,
holds, it is in this matter of the testimony of the
senses. He who rejects their testimony in regard
to any matter which comes fairly within their own
proper sphere has no right to recognise as trust-
worth)- their testimony in regard to any other within
the same sphere. The warrant for the refusal of

• CONDITIONS TO HE OBSERVED. 25

o.ur faith in one instance must hold good throughout
the wide domain within which our organs of com
munication with external nature are called into
exercise. In brief, the theory carried out must
land its advocates in Berkeleyan idealism — a specu
lative notion which no man acts upon in his actual
intercourse with men and things, and which has its
origin in a most inadequate analysis of the contents
of consciousness.

As a fitting close to these remarks reference may
be made to the conditions under which the senses
are to be trusted, as given by Turrctine : — I. That
the object respecting which they are to testify be
placed at the proper distance. 2. That the medium
be pure and free from everything which might mar
the image. 3. That the organ be employed accord
ing to the laws which govern its use. 4. That all
the senses by which the object can be cognised be
consulted and agree in the same judgment. 5. That
they be employed and exercised with due attention,
and not hastily. 6. That the imagination be free
from disturbing abnormal states, such as are incident
to frenzy or fever, causing the mind to imagine that it
sees and hears things which it neither sees nor hears.
Acting under. these conditions, the senses are to be
trusted, and must be trusted, if we would avoid .doing
violence to the laws impressed upon our constitution ;
and it is under these conditions they act when they
testify that the bread and wine in the Eucharist

THE RULE OF FAITH.

remain unchanged by the consecrating act of the
priest. See " Turretine Loc. Prim. Qurest." xi. th. vii.

MYSTICISM.

While the term Mysticism has been employed
in the history of the Church to designate a great
variety of systems, philosophical and theological,
there is one radical conception which pervades and
characterises them all. They all agree in teaching
that the soul derives its knowledge directly from
God and not through the medium of ab extra in
struction. As Cousin expresses it, " Mysticism in
philosophy is the belief that God may be known
face to face, without anything intermediate. It is
a yielding to the sentiment awakened by the idea
of the infinite, and a running up of all knowledge
and all duty to the contemplation and love of Him."
(Quoted from Fleming's Vocabulary in Hodge's
" Syst. Theol.," vol. i. p. 62.) Such is Mysticism
whether in Philosophy or Religion. By intuition
it supersedes all discursive processes of the human
mind. It -glorifies the spirit at the expense of the
letter and of all the outward and ordinary means
of grace. The mystic exalts his feelings above all
outward instrumentalities, and regards them as a
safer guide than the more sure word of prophecy.
His feelings, in fact, become his rule of faith, for
his interpretations of Scripture are not. determined
by any reasonable process of exegesis, but by his

ATTITUDE OF MYSTICISM TOWARD REVELATION. 27

o\vn likes and dislikes. As described by Dr.
Charles Hodge, " it is the theory, variously modified,
that the knowledge, purity, and blessedness to be
derived from communion with God are not to be
attained from the Scriptures and the use of the
ordinary means of grace, but by a supernatural and.
immediate Divine influence, which influence (or
communication of God to the soul) is to be secured
by passivity, a simple yielding the soul without
thought or effort to the Divine influx" (" Syst. •
Theol.," vol. i. p. 64).

As already intimated, the mystic cannot, con
sistently, recognise any outside objective standard
or test, by which this inner light, or alleged com
munication of God to the soiil, is to be judged. He
who is immediately taught of God can recognise
no other Master. As the sacred Scriptures are a
record of what the sacred writers received through
this same channel, and as these men were favoured
with an extraordinary degree of the Divine influence,
great respect and a certain measure of authority
should be accorded them ; but where their teachings
appear to conflict with this inner revelation, recourse
must be had to methods of interpretation which will
reconcile the Scriptures to its dicta. Where this
expedient fails, the mystic has no alternative but
to reject the objective Revelation. A striking
instance of the adoption of this alternative occurred
in a remarkable address delivered recently by an

2-8 THE RULE OF FAITH.

eminent statesman. Referring to that passage in
the book of Job (chap. v. 7) in which Eliphaz
the Temanite speaks of man as being " born unto
trouble, as the sparks fly upward," and regarding
the language as that of Job, the speaker was
reported as saying that he differed with him. This
passage, moreover, though it occurs in a speech of
Eliphaz, is in perfect accord with the doctrine of
the Bible in regard to the earthly lot of man
since the fall, and may, therefore, be regarded as
entitled to all the respect clue to an authoritative
inspired deliverance. The incident is interesting as
showing that in practice the mystic will regulate
his creed by. his own feelings even where those
feelings prompt him to differ with the testimony of
the sacred record.

This theory differs from the Rationalistic in this
important respect, that it regards the inner light
not as constitutional, but as a special personal
influence of the Holy Spirit, who, it is alleged,
enlightens every man that cometh into the world.
According to the former, the light is natural ; ac
cording to the latter, it is supernatural. Both agree
in holding that it is a sufficient guide, not only for
the life that now is, but also for that which is to come.

It differs also from the doctrine of Inspiration.
In Inspiration there is an immediate communication
of truth through the intellectual powers, while, on
the Mystic theory, the agency of the Spirit is limited

MYSTICISM DIFFERS FROM ILLUMINATION. 29

to the Feelings. In the former case there is a
communication of information ; in the latter the
emotions are stirred, and the man, under the power
of these impulses, is borne along to conclusions
respecting God and Divine things which it were
sinful to gainsay or challenge.

Nor is this theory to be confounded with the
Scripture doctrine of Illumination. The Scriptures
teach that the children of God shall be all taught
of God ; but this teaching is always correlative to
an existing objective standard, and consists in the
enlightenment of the disciple in the saving know
ledge of its truths. According to the Mystic theory,
the agency of the Spirit is independent of all ob
jective standards, and conveys, immediately, by the
excitation of the Feelings, all the knowledge requi
site to faith or practice, a knowledge which is the
sole ultimate standard and authoritative guide.

THE VIEWS OF THE QUAKERS, OR FRIENDS,
ox THE INNER LICHT.

Passing by that section of the Quakers who have
lapsed from the faith so as to give up all that dis
tinguishes Christianity from Deism, it is proper, in
this connection, to notice the views of those who arc
known as the Orthodox Quakers. These hold all the
leading truths of Christianity, including the Scripture
doctrine of the Trinity, the person and work
of Christ, the personality, deity, and office work

30 THE RULE OF FAITH.

of the Holy Ghost, the original state of man, his
fall through transgression, and the ruin and misery
thereby brought upon the race, involving their utter
inability to know God aright or to do anything
spiritually good. They hold with other Christians
that there will be a resurrection both of the just and
the unjust, of. the one to everlasting life and of
the other to everlasting punishment, when God will
judge the world by that Man whom He hath
ordained, even the Lord Jesus Christ.

Touching the Sacred Scriptures, they- hold to the
common faith that they are given by inspiration
of God, and that they contain the whole sum of
saving knowledge, and also that whatsoever doctrine
or practice is contrary to their teaching is to be
rejected, " that they are a declaration of the mind
and will of God in -and to the several ages in which
they were written, and are obligatory on us, and are
to be read, believed, and fulfilled by the assist
ance of Divine grace." They recognise, besides the
Scriptures, " no outward judge or test of contro
versies among Christians," and they are willing to
have all their doctrines and practices tried by them,
and they " freely admit that whatsoever any do, pre
tending to the Spirit, which is contrary to the 'Scrip
tures, is to be condemned as a delusion of the devil."

But along with these very satisfactory statements
of saving truth, the Quakers hold that the inner
light, which they represent as common to all men,

DOCTKIXE OF THE EVANGELICAL QUAKERS. 31

is sufficient, if attended to, to lead men to a know
ledge " of their o\vn sin and misery, and to make
them sharers of the sufferings of Christ, inwardly ;
and to make them partakers of His resurrection, in
becoming holy, pure, and righteous, and recovered
out of their sins" (Evans, quoted by. I lodge, vol.
i. pp. 90 — 93;-

According to the Quakers, the Church in apostolic
times is the model, in all respects, for all times.
The provision for the edification of the Christian
assembly was spiritual gifts bestowed upon the
individual members. These gifts were given to
profit withal, and those upon whom they were
bestowed were thereby authorised and commis
sioned to employ them for the benefit of the body.
This arrangement was not a provisional one, or
designed to meet a special emergency. On the
contrary, it was an institution designed to last
throughout the Christian dispensation. Of course
those who hold this view of the office of the Holy
Spirit in the Church must regard the individual
members of the body as raised above the necessity
of instruction through external instrumentalities.
Hence, as a matter of fact, while the Quakers recog
nise the inspiration and consequent authority of
the Sacred. Scriptures, they are far from giving
them that supreme place, as sources of spiritual
knowledge, assigned them by the churches of the
Reformation, both Lutheran and Reformed.

THE RULE OF FA I TIL

REMARKS UPON THIS THEORY OF AN INNER
LIGHT.

i. In the first place it maybe observed that this
theory contains an element of truth. ' It is one of
the most precious truths of Revelation that the
Holy Spirit holds intercourse with the spirits of
God's people, and that this intercourse is immediate.
In Regeneration, by His direct agency, He imparts
life to the soul dead in trespasses and sin ; in adop
tion He bears witness with the regenerate that they
are the children of God ; in sanctification He renews
the soul throughout all its powers, enabling it to die
more and more unto sin and live unto righteousness ;
and in intercession He acts after a Divine manner,
creating, by His omnipotent power, desires after the
blessings which Christ has died to purchase and
which He hves to bestow. One of the greatest of
the triad of blessings embraced in the apostolic
benediction is the KOIVMVLOL — the communion of the
Holy Ghost.

As. already intimated, this intercourse is direct
between the spirit of man and the Spirit of God, and
by it spiritual life is originated and maintained in the
soul. It is an intercourse, however, which has its
clearly revealed conditions. In the case of adults,
one of its conditions is the 'knowledge of the objective
Revelation given in the Sacred Scriptures. The
action of the Spirit is correlative to the truths 'of

PROOF TEXTS IMPERTINENT OR INCONCLUSIVE. 33

Revelation. The fundamental error of the Mystic
theory is that it overlooks altogether, or attaches
comparatively little importance to this condition.

2. It may be remarked that the Scriptures no
where teach that such inner spiritual guidance is
given to all men. The passages on which Mystics
rely are such as the following : — " All thy children
shall be taught of the Lord" (Isa. liv. 13 ; quoted
by our Saviour John vi. 45) ; "I will put My law
in their inward parts, and write them in their hearts,
and will be their God, and they shall be My people.
And they shall teach no more every man his neigh
bour and every man his brother, saying, Know the
Lord, for all shall know Me, from the least of them
unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord " (Jer.
xxxi. 33, 34; quoted Heb. viii. 10, I i). Now
it may be said of all such passages : I. That the bless
ings of which they speak are not universal, but are, on
the contrary, limited to those who are in covenant
with God. 2. That if they are at all pertinent, they
prove too much for the Mystics. Taken literally as
the rule for the regulation of the instruction of all
men, it must impose, not a mere temporary, but a
perpetual silence upon every individual in reference
to all others. Such instruction as these passages
describe must supersede, and render unnecessary, all
instruction by any finite agency, whether human or
angelic. Why should one try to instruct another
where all are raised above the need of human in-

34 THE RULE OF FAITH.

struction, by the immediate teaching of God and
the Divine inscription of His law ?

The point to be established is not that the Spirit
is given to all believers, but that He is given to
all men. The thing to be proved is not that
lie is given to open the eyes of the understand
ing to behold and apprehend the truths of an
already existing revelation, but that He is given to
produce a state of feeling which may, in some way
or other, serve as a source of truth and a rule of
duty. The thing to be proved is not that the
Spirit is given to enforce the light of nature, or the
light of God's word, upon the consciences of men, but
that He is given to all men as a source of knowledge
independent of, and superior to, all standards or rules
of duty derived from any external source whatever.

3. In the next place, it may be objected to the
Mystic theory that it is in conflict with those pas
sages of Scripture which refer the teachings of
every spirit to the extant Revelation, as the supreme
and ultimate standard by which every fresh com
munication is to be judged. Christians are ad
monished not to believe every spirit, but to try the
spirits whether they be of God. To this rule there
is to be no exception. It is not only to be applied
to men, but to angels also. " Though we or an
angel from heaven preach unto you any other gospel
than that we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed " (Gal. i. 8). If, as it must be admitted,

HELPLESS IN DEALING WITH ERRORIS'IS. 35

the rule thus laid down was laid down by one who
was under an extraordinary influence of the Spirit,
with what show of consistency can it be held that a
man is to be heard and deferred to, who, professing
to be under the immediate influence of the same
Spirit, not only refuses to submit to such a test, but
actually contradicts the doctrines pronounced, by His
authority, the ultimate test of all professed evangelical
communications ?

. According to Mysticism every man is consti
tuted by the inner light a standard and rule to him
self, and the standards of Mysticism must be as
numerous as are the Mystics. According to the
Sacred Scriptures, however, the word of God claims
to be the only rule, and to this every man must con
form, and by this sure word of prophecy every spirit
must be tried.

4. As might be expected, Mysticism is helpless
when it is called upon to deal with crrorists. It has
no standard or criterion whereby to determine the
claims of a professed Divine communication. And
equally helpless must be the individual who may
imagine himself to be under the teaching of this
inner light. Were there no other spirit in the
universe having access to his mind save the Spirit
of God, he might not be so much at a loss to
determine whether the influence were Divine ; but
how is he to know, apart from some objective
standard, whether the influence may not be of the

36 THE RULE OF F ATI II.

evil one, or whether the imagined light be "not the
offspring of a heated imagination.?

5. Finally, against Mysticism may be urged the
conclusive fact that apart from the objective Rcvc-'
lation there is no evidence that the Holy Spirit has
ever led any one to the saving knowledge of God.
It is vain to adduce in support of the Mystic theory
the instances furnished in the histories of Job and
Mclchisedec. The latter stands out on the inspired
record as an eminent type of the Messiah, as One
whose priesthood was above the priesthood of
Aaron. His interview with Abraham shows clearly
that he knew Gocl, and the office which he held and
executed proved that he was acquainted with the
way in which God was to be 'worshipped, and also
that he had respect, beyond what Mystics have, to
external ordinances. The former, as the narrative
states, held intercourse with God, not simply by
inner light or subjective impulses, but by audible
utterances and direct personal interviews. Job and
Melchisedec ma}* be regarded as instances of the
continuance of the knowledge of God outside the
chosen race, and as proofs that the Revelation made
to Noah, and by him transmitted to his posterity,
did not immediately perish from the world.

Tin-: ROMISH THEORY OF THE RULE OF FAITH.

As stated by Baronius, " Illud omnc et solum est
de fide catholica, quod est revelatum in verbo Dei

ROMISH POSITION STRICTLY DEFINED.

ct proposition omnibus ab ccclesia Catholica fide
Divina crcdcndum." Expounding this statement,
Lieberman in his "Theological Institutes" remarks :
" This rule is resolved into two parts. The first
embraces the word of God, in which, as in its
fountain, the whole Revelation is contained. The
second embraces the authority of the Church, which
elicits the Revelation from the word of God and
points it out to men. Two things, therefore, must
conspire in order that any doctrine may be a part
of the Catholic faith. First, that it be revealed by
God through prophets and apostles, or canonical
authors ; for every revelation afterwards made, does
not pertain to the Catholic faith. Second, that the
doctrine be propounded by the Church. If both
these conditions be fulfilled, the doctrine is to be
believed with a Divine Catholic faith. If either be
wanting — the Revelation, or the proposal (propositio)
of it by the Church — it is not to be believed with
a Divine Catholic faith. But the second condition
cannot be present without the first being present
also ; for since Christ has promised to the Church
the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who should teach
and lead her into all truth, she, while this promise,
which endureth for ever, remains, can never teach
that anything has been revealed which has not been
revealed. Nevertheless, something may be revealed
by God even in the word, to wit, obscurely, which
may not as yet have been propounded by the

3S THE RULE OF FAITH.

Church, because, though revealed in the Divine
word, it needs an interpreter, and the Church may
not as yet have apprehended the sense of the word
of God, written or handed down by tradition, and
thus has not as yet defined it, and hence has not as
yet proposed either this or that to be believed by
faith.

" Now any one will easily understand that when
we hypothecate the authority of the Church we do
not detract from the authority of the Divine word.
The Church does not strike out new doctrines, she
brings forth nothing of her own, but teaches those
doctrines which are contained in the revealed word
of God ; and these, as the faithful custodian and
mistress of the faith, she sets forth to be believed."
. . . " Hence," Licberman concludes, " the principle
remains unshaken that the ultimate source of all re
vealed Theology is the authority of God revealing.

" The Church possesses the Divine word and brings
forth from the Divine word her doctrines ; and we,
when we hear the Church, are sure that we believe
the Divine word and hold that doctrine which Christ
has revealed, and which the apostles have left to
us cither written, or by word of mouth " (vol. i.

PP- 387-8)-

Rome therefore holds, as Protestants do, that the
revealed word of God is the sole rule of faith ; but
she differs from Protestants in regard to the com
prehension of the term " the revealed word of God."

ROMISH EXTENSION OF THE CAXON. 39

While Romanists hold that all the Scriptures recog
nised by Protestants arc entitled to rank as the
\vord of God, they add to the Canon as held by
Protestants a large number of books which Protes
tants treat as apocryphal and refuse to recognise
as entitled to canonical standing as part and parcel
of the extant Revelation. Xor is Rome content
with adding the Apocrypha to the Canon of In
spiration ; to this supplemented Canon she adds
Tradition, or what she describes as the word of
God orally delivered. Nor is she willing to risk
her claims upon an appeal to this complex standard,
but arrogates to herself solely and exclusively the
office of interpreter — a claim which she founds upon
the alleged obscurity of the revealed word, the
authority wherewith she has been invested as the
ordained instructrix of mankind, and the qualifica
tions she possesses, in virtue of the promised pre
sence of the Holy Spirit, for the execution of the
functions of this spiritual office.

The reason which leads Romanists to attach so
much importance to Tradition and the apocryphal
writings is simply because they find therein a
support for some of their distinctive doctrines for
which they can claim no foundation in the Canonical
books recognised by Protestants. The doctrines
which they hold to be taught either fully or exclu
sively by Tradition are — I. The Canon of Scripture.
2. The full doctrine of the Trinitv, including the rank

4o THE RULE OF FAIJH.

and relations of the Father, Son, and Spirit. 3. The
Incarnation. 4. The perpetual virginity, etc., of the
Virgin Mary. 5. Infant baptism. 6. The change
of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day
of the week. 7. The doctrine of apostolical suc
cession. 8. The government of the Church by
bishops. 9. The threefold order of the priesthood.
10. The grace of Orders. 11. The sacrificial cha
racter of the Eucharist. 12. The seven sacraments.
1 3. The doctrine of purgatory. The slightest in
spection of this partial list will satisfy any candid
mind at all acquainted with the teaching of the
Divine word, that some of these doctrines, such as
that of the Trinity and the Incarnation, are clearly
revealed in Scripture and in no wise dependent upon
Tradition, while others are not only not revealed
there, but are cither expressly or implicitly contra
dicted. The concession implied in this appeal to
Tradition is worthy of special note. The appeal
carries with it the implication that, for doctrines
which arc the chief distinctive characteristics of her
system, Rome can find no satisfactory evidence in
the canonical Scriptures recognised by Protestants.

ROMISH ESTIMATE OF THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES.

Not satisfied with making void the word of God
through her traditions, the Church of Rome, by a
decision of the Council of Trent, has placed the
Latin Vulgate above the original Hebrew and Greek

KOM/SI/ EXALTATION OF THE VULGATE. 41

texts of Scripture. In the fourth session of that coun
cil the following decree was passed ! — " Moreover, the
same sacred and holy synod, considering that no
little advantage may accrue to the Church of God
if out of all the Latin editions of the sacred books
now in circulation it make known which arc to be
held as authentic, ordains and declares that the said
old and Vulgate edition, which by the long usage of so
many ages has been approved in the Church, be held
as authentic in public readings, disputations, preach
ings, and expositions, and that no one may dare or
presume to reject it on any pretext whatsoever."

Some Romish writers contend that this decree
was not intended to exalt the Latin Vulgate above
the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, but simply to
express the preference of the Council for that version
rather than the other Latin versions then in circula
tion side by side with it. In support of the charge
made by Protestants the following arguments may
be urged : — I. The contents of the Vulgate (cm-
bracing, as it does, the Apocrypha, the books of
which arc specified in the decree) differs, canonically,
from the Hebrew text. 2. This difference in regard
to contents, of course, raises a cardinal question
between the two books. According to the Hebrew
Bible, the Apocrypha is not a part of the rule of
faith, while according to the Vulgate it is of equal
authority with any other portion of the record.
Here is manifestly a conflict of grave importance

42 THE RULE OF FAITH.

between the two claimants. The point in dispute,
however, is settled by the Tridentine decree, and,
beyond doubt, is settled in favour of the Latin
Vulgate, and against the claims of the original
Hebrew. This must be manifest, for the decree
pronounces an anathema upon the man who shall
not receive the books enumerated in all their parts
as they are given in the said Latin version. 3. By
ordaining that the Vulgate was to be held authentic
in all public lections, disputations, preachings, and
expositions, and that no one was to dare or presume
to reject it on any pretext whatsoever, the synod
evidently constituted it the supreme and ultimate
standard of appeal on all occasions where questions
of doctrine could possibly arise, for the phrase quovis
prcctcxtu certainly covers all pretexts, and among
others the pretext that the Vulgate does not agree
with the Hebrew. The force of the argument from
the diversity of the contents of the Latin and
Hebrew texts will be more manifest on an exa
mination of the apocryphal books raised by the decree
to canonical rank. These books are as follow : —
Tobias, Judith, Sequel to the book of Esther,
amounting to nearly seven chapters, the book of
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, History of Susannah
and her children, prefixed to the book of Daniel,
the song of the three children inserted in the third
chapter of Daniel, the story of Bel and the Dragon
appended to that book. The history of Susannah

KOM/Sff ESTIMATE OF TRADITION. 43

and her children is given in the LXX., but is omitted
in the Vulgate. The list closes with the two books
of the Maccabees. There can be no need of
argument to satisfy any reasonable mind that a
decree establishing a version, differing, by all the
books here enumerated, from the original Hebrew,
as the ultimate arbiter in all questions of doctrine or
discipline, of faith or morals, does, ipso facto, set
aside the Hebrew as the standard of revealed truth.

ROMISH DOCTRINE RESPECTING TRADITION.

•
As employed by Romanists, the term Tradition

designates the oral instructions of Christ and His
apostles, which were not committed to writing, but
handed down to the early Fathers, from whom we
have them uncorrupted and possessed of all the
authority of the Sacred Scriptures themselves.
These traditions thus committed to the custody of
the Church, and by her transmitted from age to age,
are to be received as the word of God, and are to be
believed and reverenced with the same devotional
regard as the Scriptures themselves, and if any
one, knowingly and deliberately, treats them with
contempt, he incurs thereby an anathema. The
ground of this anathema is that the Church, in
transmitting these Divinely uttered traditions, has
been infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.

These traditions have been variously classified, as
historical, dogmatical, liturgical. Bellarminc divides

44 THE RULE OF FAITH.

them into — I. Divine — those uttered by our Lord
Himself. 2. Apostolical — those spoken by the
Apostles. 3. Ecclesiastical — those which relate to
rites and ceremonies instituted by the Church. The
last-named class arc not regarded as of equal
importance with those embraced under the others,
but they are, nevertheless, regarded as obligatory
upon the faithful, having been ordained by a Church
claiming the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost.
The reasons assigned by Romanists for having
recourse to tradition are twofold, viz., the imperfection
and obscurity of Scripture. The former defect is
met by the matter of tradition, and the latter by the
character of it. As a rule of faith and practice, they
allege, the Scriptures arc incomplete, as they do not
supply information on such subjects as have been
already enumerated. This defect was provided for
by our Lord and His apostles, by. oral instruction
handed down through an infallible Church. Besides
this quantitative deficiency, the Scriptures are quali
tatively defective, as they contain things hard to be
understood, which require explanation, and this
defect is provided for in the authoritative expositions
supplied by Tradition. Moehler in his " Symbolik "
defines Tradition as " the word living on in the
hearts of the faithful." With him it is the outcome
of a peculiar instinct ingenerated by the education
of the faithful and handed down under the infallible
guidance of the Church. He accounts for the addi-

ROMISH ARGUMENTS IX SUPPORT OF TRADI1 1 .V. 45

tions to the sum total of the Revelation which have
been accumulating from age to age of the Church's
history by referring them to the growing doctrinal
consciousness of the organisation. The Church, he
alleges, docs not add to the teaching of Christ and
His apostles, but gro\vs more and more into the
spirit of it, and acquires, under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, clearer vie\vs and a fuller knowledge of
its import. The Immaculate Conception and the In
fallibility of the Pope are, therefore, not to be
regarded as dogmas added to the rule of faith, but
arc to' be viewed as doctrines which, although always,
from Apostolic times, contained in the Revelation
committed to the custody of the Church, were, never
theless, not clearly and fully apprehended by her
prior to the times of their formal enunciation and
ratification.

i ARGUMENTS ix SUPPORT or
TRADITION.

The following arc the chief arguments advanced
by the Church of Rome in support of Tradition : —

1. All the discourses and conversations of Christ
and His apostles were not committed to writing.

2. The instructions communicated in these discourses
and conversations would be carefully treasured in
the memories of the disciples, and by them sedulously
guarded and faithfully handed down to their suc
cessors. 3. The Scriptures themselves recognise the

46 THE RULE OF PA I TIL

• existence of Tradition in apostolic times, and exhort
the faithful "to hold them fast" (2 Thess. ii. 15).
4. The Fathers appeal to traditions extant in their
day, which were not contained in Scripture, and
base upon them doctrinal conclusions. 5. The
argumentnm ad hominem. They allege that Protes
tants are compelled to fall back on Tradition in
establishing doctrines for which they have no other
proof, for example the Canon of Scripture. In
receiving the Scriptures as the word of God, it is
alleged that Protestants admit the authority of
Tradition. 6. Many modern theologians, as Moehlcr,
try to vindicate the doctrine philosophically by repre
senting Tradition as a gradual historical development
of the truths of Scripture as, under the teaching of
the Spirit, they are brought more and more to the
consciousness of the Church. 7. As already seen,
the Council of Trent assumes Tradition as a primary
fact without attempting any proof.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ROMISH DOCTRINE.

In reply to the foregoing arguments the following
are submitted : — i. While Protestants admit that all
the discourses of Christ and His apostles were not
committed to writing, and that these sayings would
be carefully .treasured by the disciples, they do not
admit that these sayings are now extant and capable
of authentication, or that they were designed to
constitute a part of the permanent rule of faith.

IF WORTH TRANSMISSION, WORTH RECORDING. 47

The question cannot be repressed : " Why should
sayings of such importance to the interests of the
Church be committed to the channel of Tradition,
while sayings of far less importance have been
committed to writing ? " It was surely as important
to know that there is a real sacrifice in the Kucharist
as to be told that Paul left a cloak at Troas. It
was certainly of as much interest to the Church of
God to know that He has kindled, for the further
and final purification of Mis saints, a purgatorial
fire of as intense a flame as the fiery stream of
Tophet, as to be told that the barbarous people of
Melita lighted a fire to warm Paul and his com
panions after their escape from shipwreck. Are
we to believe that He who inspired His servants
to make infallible record of the less important,
nevertheless, gave no such heed to the communica
tion of truths which, if we are to credit the account
of them given by Romanists, must take rank as
among the most important doctrines of the analogy
of the faith ? Granting the Romish premises of •
unrecorded discourses, therefore, Protestants deny
their conclusion of an unrecorded transmission.
The inference is altogether inadequate. It is not
a sufficient inference from the fact that our Lord
and His apostles spake such things as Rome recounts
that they would be carefully remembered, sacredly
guarded, and faithfully transmitted. The premises
warrant a much more sweeping conclusion. If

4S THE RULE OF FAITH.

Christ and His apostles taught, orally, that the
Eucharist is a real sacrifice, /r0 vivis ct vwrtnis, that
the Cliristian ministry is a sacrificing priesthood,
through which alone men have access to God, and
that for the overwhelming majority of those who
have been redeemed by the blood of Christ there
rcmaincth after this earthly pilgrimage, and prior
to the bliss of heaven, a process of purgation, in
volving sufferings unutterable, we arc warranted in
the conclusion that such doctrines would not have
been left to the memories of fallible men, but would
have been committed to writing side by side with
the foremost truths of the Divinely inspired record.
There can be no reason whatever rendered for
singling out doctrines of such magnitude and com
mitting them to the dubious channel of Tradition.
On the contrary, doctrines intended, as Rome alleges,
to supplement and expound the Rule of Faith, would,
of all others, be most likely to obtain a place in
the Inspired Record.

2. Protestants argue from the well-known imper
fection of Tradition as a medium of preserving and
transmitting doctrine. Who could speak with cer
tainty of the doctrines of the Reformation if we
did not possess the symbols of the Lutheran ana!
Reformed Churches and the writings of the leading
Reformers ? No one relies on the reports which
have come down through the channel of Tradition
when treating of the doctrinal views of Luther, or

ABUSES CORRECTED BY SCRIPTURE ALO.VE. 49

Zwingli, or Calvin, or Knox. Trustworthy historians
do not depend upon current gossip, nor do theologians
place their confidence in any source of information
short of original documents, or well-attested copies
of the same, or faithful renderings of their contents.

3. With regard to the arguments in support of
Tradition which Romanists found on such passages
as i Corinthians xv. 3, and xi. 34, 2 Thessalonians ii.
15, John xvi. 12, i Timothy i. I, 13, 14, and ii. 2,
2 Timothy iii. 8, 2 John I 2, 3 John 13, 14, it may be
remarked — (i) That a doctrine may be called a
tradition however communicated, whether orally or
by writing, as is clear from one of the passages here
enumerated, where Paul urges the Thessalonians to
stand fast and hold the traditions which they had
been taught, whether by word or his epistle. (2) It
is manifest on examination that the other passages
furnish no warrant for the Romish doctrine. Take
as an example i Corinthians xi. 34, which occurs at
the close of the Apostle's remonstrance against the
abuse of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper by the
Church at Corinth. In the course of this remon
strance he lays down a principle which is directly
antagonistic to the principle on which Rome proceeds.
He corrects the abuse in question by a reference to
the original institution — a principle which our Lord
had previously acted upon in reforming abuses of
the institution of marriage. The sin of the Corin
thians consisted in their departure from what the

50 7 HE RULE OF FAITH.

Apostle had received from the Lord Jesus and
delivered unto them, and in the carnal unbrotherly
manner in which they had engaged in a service of
such high spiritual significance, and which was
designed to be a symbol of brotherly fellowship.
All that he corrects, he corrects by the standard
already delivered to them, and all that he speaks
of further as needing correction, he promises " to
set in order " when he should come to Corinth.
When this Corinthian reformation was completed,
therefore, all that was done was done by apostolic
authority, and nothing left to be regulated by rules
or rites treasured up in the memories of a Church
which showed herself so ready to forget, even in
the Apostle's own day, the most explicit instructions
in relation to the most sacred of all the ordinances
of Christianity. The instance in question furnishes
of itself sufficient proof that no church can be
trusted to transmit any instruction apart from a
written, authoritative inspired record.

4. As to the argument from the usage of the
Fathers, Protestants reply that the Romish argument
is altogether fallacious, depending upon the equivocal
meaning of the term tradition. Their argument
from the mere occurrence of this word, is like the
argument for Episcopacy from the occurrence of the
word bishop. Assuming that the word bishop in
the first centuries of the Christian Church meant
what prclatists now designate by it, they quote

PAULINE USAGE OF THE TERM TRADITION. 51

passages from the early Fathers in which the term
bishop occurs, and think they have thereby estab
lished their position that prelacy is an institution of
immemorial antiquity. In like manner the advocates
of Tradition play upon the word tradition. They
assume -that it meant with the Fathers what it means
with themselves, and think that the mere mention
of the word by a Father proves that he held their
views regarding this alleged source of Divine truth.
It has been shown already that this word was
employed by Paul, in addressing the Thessalonians,
to designate the truths which he had himself
delivered to them, whether by letter or by word
of mouth. As this reference to former teaching
occurs in his second epistle, it is manifest that he
means by the traditions communicated " by epistle "
those instructions delivered in his first epistle. Ac
cording to the Pauline usage, therefore, the doctrinal
truths of the first epistle to the Thessalonians may
be called traditions. This usage was a usage of
the Greek language, and common to Greek writers,
or Paul would not have employed it, for he could
both speak and write Greek ; and no argument
founded upon it in support of the Romish special
use of the term can be historically or Scripturally
sustained. It cannot be shown that the Feathers,
on whose usage Romanists rely, used the term in
the Romish sense, or that they meant anything
more than what Protestants mean when they speak

THE RULE OF FAITH.

of the faith of the people of God in all ages of their
history.

All this reasoning is confirmed by the express
testimony of the Fathers, who always make their
final appeal to Scripture and place it above all other
authorities, as the ultimate standard by which all
doctrines arc to be adjudged. Tertullian, for ex
ample, in his book against Hermogenes (chap. 21),
says: " Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem," and adds:
" Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenes, aut si non est
scriptum, timeat illud vse adjicientibus." And in
his tractates against Heretics, this same father writes :
" Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum, nee
inquisitione post evangelium. Quum credimus, hoc
primum credimus, nihil esse quod ultra credere
debeamus." Jerome shows himself to be of the
same mind in his comment on Matthew xxiii., when
he says: "Quod de Scripturis auctoritatem non
habet, cadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur."
In a similar strain Augustine writes in his book
"De Doctrina Christi" (lib. ii. cap. 29) : " In his qua^
aperte posita sunt in Scripturis, inveniuntur ea
omnia, qu.ii continent fidem moresque vivendi."
Basil, in his sermon " De Fide," delivers a like judg
ment : " Infidelitatis argumentum est, et signum
superbiac, aliquid vel eorum quae scripta sunt in-
firmarc, aut eorum quae non scriptae sunt intro-
duccrc." Irenn2us, in his treatise against Heretics
(book iii. cap. i), expresses the same estimate of the

SCRIPTURE THE SOLE PATRISTIC RULE. 53

Scriptures : " Non per alios dispositionem salutis
nostra.* cognovimus, quam per cos per quos evan-
gelium pcrvenit ad nos, quod quidem praeconi-
averant, postea vero per Dei volentatem in Scripturis
nobis tradiderunt, columnam et fundamentum fidei
nostra; futurum." (See Turretine, " De Scrip. " quaest.
xvi. th. xx. See also Goode's " Divine Rule of Faith
and Practice," chaps, ix. and x.)

These references are sufficient to prove that the
Fathers, to whom Rome professes to appeal with
such confidence, held very different views respecting
the authority of Scripture and Tradition from those
advocated by her theologians and assumed by the
Council of Trent. With them the Scriptures were
the touchstone by which all doctrine and all doctors
were to be tried. They believed that nothing is to
be believed besides what is written therein, and that
there is to be found therein all that pertains to faith
and life. Kvcry attempt to weaken anything taught
in Scripture, or to introduce anything not taught
therein, was regarded as a proof of unbelief and a
sign of pride. If the Fathers are to have a voice in
the settlement of this question, surely those here
quoted are worthy of a hearing, and the passages
cited prove, beyond doubt, that their views were the
same as those held by Protestants.

5. To the argumentitm ad Jiominein that Pro
testants receive the Scriptures as the word of God
on the authority of Tradition, it may be answered —

54 THE RULE OF FAITH.

(i) That the allegation is false. It is a funda
mental of Protestantism that the ultimate ground
of our full persuasion that the Scriptures are the
word of God is the testimony of the Spirit bearing
witness by and with the truth in our hearts. (2) In
appealing to the testimony of the Church respecting
the canonicity of a book of Scripture, Protestants
simply accept the testimony of the Church to a matter
of fact. They do what Lardner does so exhaustively
in his " Credibility " : they show, by reference to the
writings of the Fathers, what books were regarded
by them and received by all Christians as the word
of God, and they cite as witnesses in support of the
Protestant canon the enemies of Christianity as well
as its friends. Celsus and Porphyry, Julian, and
Manes, and Marcion, are made to testify as well as
Tertullian, or Jerome, or Augustine, or Basil. It is
one thing to cite the chief of the Fathers as witness
on a question of fact, and a very different thing to
appeal to their judgment as the ground of our faith.
The character of their testimony precludes the
possibility of such estimate of it. While their lan
guage proves what was regarded as the word of
God in their day, it proves also that they regarded
the word as resting upon its own authority and not
upon the authority of themselves or those from
whom they received it. (3) Besides, Protestants
do not recognise the Fathers as ultimate authorities
on any question of faith or practice. If a Father

MODERN THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT. 55

represents an apostle as teaching doctrines contrary
to the analogy of the faith, \ve have no alternative
but to reject his account of the apostolic teaching,
or to reject the written word of God. It is surely
more reasonable, in such cases, to hear what the
Apostles themselves say than to accept the patristic
version of their teaching.

6. Touching the modern theory of Tradition, as
a gradual development of the doctrines of Scripture
as they come more and more to the consciousness
of the Church, it may be remarked that it is one
thing for the people of God, in the progress of the
Church's history, and through collision with errorists,
to elicit more fully and define more accurately the
teaching of God's word in the several departments
of Theology proper, Anthropology, Soteriology,
Ecclesiology, and Eschatology, and a widely different
thing to add to the existing record doctrines which
cannot be established from it or harmonised with it.

Protestants, moreover, do not rest satisfied with
a mere exposure of the weakness of the Romish
arguments : they go further, and argue positively—

i. From the conditions necessary to an infallible
transmission of the oral instructions of Christ and
His apostles. If the Apostles themselves required
the presence and agency of the Holy Ghost to
enable them to place, infallibly, on record, the in
structions communicated orally by Christ which we
find in the Gospels, surely those who succeeded

56 THE RULE OF PAITH.

them were in equal need of the like guidance in
transmitting the alleged evangelical and apostolical
traditions. Nothing short of such spiritual super
natural agency could guarantee the infallible trans
mission of these alleged oral utterances.

Of course it can be said in reply that this argu
ment will not be regarded by Romanists as of any
weight against their position, seeing that they claim
for their Church the guidance in question. Of such
guidance, there is, however, not only no promise in
Scripture, but no evidence in the history of the
doctrinal deliverances of the Church that claims it.
In vain is this claim advanced in face of the facts of
that Church's history. It is just as clear that through
her traditions she has made void the plainest teach
ings of Christ and His apostles as it was in Christ's
day that the Jewish Church had made void the
word of God by their traditions. If we are to
apply to this claim the test " By their fruits ye shall
know them," the conclusion is unavoidable that a
Church which has erred from the clearly revealed
truths of Scripture cannot have been under the
infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost.

2. Protestants deny the Romish interpretation of
those promises of Christ to be with His Church
always, and to send for her guidance the gift of the
Holy Ghost. In so far as that promise extended
beyond the Apostles and Evangelists to the Church
generally, it was not a promise of guidance to the

ROMISH IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 57

Church as understood by the Church of Rome, but
to the Church in the Protestant acceptation of the
term. In other words, the Church to which the
promise of infallible guidance was given is the
Church which Christ has purchased with His blood,
and to which He guarantees eternal life. As this
Church is not identical with any outward visible
organisation, no such organisation, whether Romish
or Protestant, can lay claim to it.

But besides Rome errs not only in her idea of
the Church to which these promises are made, but
in what she embraces under the promise. Wrong
in her view of the Church, she is wrong also in what
has been promised to the Church. Whereas Christ
has simply guaranteed the Church (His mystical
body) against a lapse from the firm foundation of
saving truth, Rome regards His promise as securing
her (the outward visible organisation with the Pope
as its head) against error in regard to any matter of
faith or morals. The claim advanced is that the
Church, in this organic Romish sense of the term,
has all the qualifications and endowments and all
the prerogatives of the Church under the immediate
government of the original apostolate. In view of
this claim, it may very reasonably be replied that, if
true, it proves too much. If the Church of Christ
has been gifted with a permanent apostolate to
guide her in all matters of faith and morals, what
need is there for Tradition ? But suffice it to say

58 THE RULE OF FAITH.

that the interpretation put upon such promises of
guidance as Christ has made to His people is at
war with the plain meaning of the passages relied
on, and with the analogy of the faith, and would
prove, if they be taken in the Romish sense, that the
entire organism which she calls the Church shall
never perish or be plucked out of His hand.

3. In the next place, Protestants very fairly urge
as an argument against the Romish doctrine the
impossibility of deciding satisfactorily between
conflicting traditions. The criterion assumed by
Romanists, viz., " Quod semper, quod ubique, quod
ab omnibus," that which has been always held,
everywhere, and by all, is manifestly not accessible
everywhere, always, and by all. While it is freely
admitted that the consent of all Christians, in all ages,
and everywhere, cannot be accounted for except on
the assumption that the doctrine in which all concur
is one of the Christian verities, still it is equally clear
that this common consent cannot be ascertained. It
is vain to search for it in the writings of the Fathers,
for no theologian of any age can claim to speak for
the whole Church of his day. The Fathers, more
over, contradict one another, and are often incon
sistent with themselves, while it must be confessed
that their writings — as, for example, in the case of
the Ignatian Epistles — have been tampered with and
corrupted in the interest of error.

This criterion, as used by Rome, is liable to this

RO.MfS/I DOCTRINAL VARIATIONS. 59

further objection : that its chief terms are robbed of
their true comprehension. Taken in its obvious
meaning, the criterion reaches back throughout the
whole history of the Church, among all people and
lands and languages ; but as employed by Rome,
the universal terms " semper," " ubique," "ab omni
bus," are limited to the history of that Church, to
those countries in which she has held sway, and to
the organisation of which the Pope of Rome is the
head. " Always " means — as it has ever been held
by her ; " everywhere " means — in all places within
her pale ; and " by all " means — by all Romanists.
In a word, she alone is the Church, and what she
has always held is what the Church has always held.
Now even though it were conceded that the
Church of Rome is the Church to the exclusion
of all other visible organisations, it would not follow
that the criterion requisite for the testing of Tradi
tion is to be found in her doctrinal deliverances.
Her distinctive doctrines have not been always held
by her. The Church of Rome of the present day
is a very different institution from the Church at
Rome in Paul's day ; and throughout her history
she has been adding to the doctrines of Scripture
the commandments of men. And even within her
own pale her doctrines have not been held by all.
It is an historical fact that in the course of her
mutations she has sanctioned the most conflicting
doctrinal systems. Arianism, Augustinianism, Semi-

60 THE RULE OF FAITH.

Pelagianism, have all held authoritative sway within
her pale, each in turn receiving formal sanction from
her popes and councils. As churches do not pass
from one doctrinal system to another instantaneously
and unanimously, it is not unreasonable to assume
that there were diversities of opinion and doctrinal
contentions agitating her communion while these
changes were in progress. Nor is this a mere
assumption. On the contrary, it is an historical fact.
Rome boasts of her doctrinal unity and, in contro
versy, makes much of the doctrinal contentions which
disturb and rend the different Protestant com
munions ; but this boasting is groundless, as the
history of the bitter controversies between the Fran
ciscans and Dominicans abundantly attests. These
two orders represent as widely diverse schools of
Theology as are to be found within the pale of Pro
testantism. " They differed respecting the nature of
Divine co-operation, the measure of Divine grace
necessary to salvation, the unity of form in man (or
personal identity), and many other subjects which
cannot be here enumerated." And what is worthy
of special remark in view of recent Romish legisla
tion, they differed on the question of the Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mary, Duns Scotus, the
Franciscan leader, endeavouring to defend and
demonstrate that doctrine against the Dominicans.
(See Mosheim vol. ii. pp. 470-1.) In presence of
this and like theological disputations the criterion

DECISIONS OF COUNCILS A'OT COMMON CONSE.\ T. 61

" Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus," must
be taken at considerable discount. At no stage in
the history of the Church of Rome could such
criterion have been applied.

Nor can the common consent of all Christians be
found in the decisions of councils. In the first place,
these councils had no existence prior to the fourth
century, and cannot, therefore, be accepted as ex
hibiting the faith of the preceding centuries, apart
from other and corroborative testimony. These
preceding centuries, however, in which no councils
were held, arc by far the most important, lying, as
they do, nearest to the Apostolic period. In the
next place, no council ever represented fully the
entire Church. This fact is, of course, fatal to the
claim put forth by Rome to that clement of the
criterion expressed by " ubique," while the in
harmonious character of the decisions of these par
tial councils subverts her claims in regard to ever)'
point embraced in this crucial test.

A glance at the creeds and their history will
suffice to show that the necessary criterion is not
to be found in them. They lack the all-important
attributes of antiquity, comprehensiveness, and con
cord. Even the so-called Apostles' Creed, which is
the most ancient, originating probably in the second
century, and gradually attaining its present form, is
not ancient enough, as it is manifestly not compre
hensive enough to test the dogmas of Tradition.

62 THE RULE OF FAITH.

Protestants receive all its deliverances and yet reject
every distinctive doctrine of Rome.

And this leads to the general argument that
common consent can be urged in favour of no
doctrine peculiar to Romanists, while it cannot be
adduced in support of doctrines which both hold in
common. In a word, the doctrines in behalf of
which common consent is available are the ex
ceedingly general doctrines of the Apostles' Creed,
along with whose propositions, as already stated,
the most conflicting doctrines on the leading
features of the economy of Redemption may be
held.

4. Another reason for rejecting Tradition is to
be found in the unquestionable fact that it subverts
the authority of Scripture as the rule of faith and
practice. Such has been the effect of Tradition
wherever it has been accepted, whether among Jews
or Christians. The Jewish doctrine on this subject
is so like the Romish that it cannot be passed over
without notice. According to the rabbis the law
received by Moses on Mount Sinai was divided into
the written and the oral law. The latter, they
allege, was delivered by Moses orally to Joshua, by
Joshua to the seventy elders, by the seventy elders
to the prophets, and by the prophets to the great
synagogue, and so handed down until it was re
corded in the Talmud. Substitute for Moses Christ,
and for Joshua the Apostles, and for the elders the

TRADITION NOT ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. 63

Apostolic Fathers, etc., etc , and you have the antitype
of the story of the Jewish tradition. Alike in origin
and aim, the two systems have been alike in their
effects. As it fared with the word of God under the
tradition of the Jews, so has it fared with it under
the tradition of Rome. In both cases the written
word was explained by the tradition, and made
subject to it, so that the tradition set the Scriptures
aside and superseded them as the rule of faith.

5. The rule furnished by Tradition is not acces
sible to the mass of the people of God, who are
nevertheless responsible to Him for their belief. It
requires no argument to prove that for the ordinary
membership of any church, Tradition is a fountain
sealed. It is manifest that only the learned can
know what has been held " always," il everywhere,"
and " by all." Indeed, the learned themselves, as
the history of doctrinal controversies abundantly
testifies, are not agreed regarding the teaching of
Tradition. If this be true of men whose lives of
learned leisure have been devoted to such investiga
tions, surely the vast body of believers must be
utterly incompetent to ascertain its teachings, or
employ them as a rule of faith and practice. This
unquestionable fact is, of itself, fatal to the claims
of Tradition, for all that God has made known in
the communications of 1 1 is will is intended for the
enlightenment of His Church, and not simply for the
information of church officers or men of culture.

64 THE RULE OF FAITH.

6. The doctrine of Rome on this subject is ex
posed to the objection that Tradition, even on her
own admission, requires an interpreter. This objec
tion is a grave one against the claims of Tradition,
for one of its chief ends is to interpret the written
word. It cannot be said in reply that this objection
lies equally against the written word as a rule of
faith, for Tradition, to serve the chief end for which
it has been given, should be so plain as to need no
explanation. Instead of possessing this essential
quality, however, the fact is notorious that this
guide to the understanding of the written \vord is
so obscure and contradictory as to need, as Rome
herself admits, an authoritative interpreter and
harmoniser.

7. Finally, the doctrines which Tradition is
adduced to support are false, and contrary to the
teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, which Romanists
themselves acknowledge as part of the Divine
Revelation. This contradiction imposes upon those
who are asked to receive such teaching the necessity
of rejecting the Scriptures, or rejecting the traditions
of Rome.

LECTURE III.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH AS A TEACHER.

IK subject of Tradition, as must be now
apparent, leads of necessity to the kindred
subjects of the functions of the Church as a teacher,
the authority with which she has been invested, and
the qualifications wherewith she has been endowed
for the execution of this all-important office. The
written word is imperfect and obscure. It does not
embrace all the truths which men require to know
in order to salvation, and besides it is so obscure
and hard to be understood, even on those subjects
of which it treats, that there is need for Tradition
to interpret it. This tradition itself, however, needs
an interpreter, and for this office the Church has
been commissioned and endowed, and to her both
the written word and the oral instructions left by
Christ and His Apostles for the guidance of His
people have been committed. These steps in the
progress of the argument lead natural ly, as they are
designed to lead, to the conclusion that the Church
to whose custody these oracles, written and or.tl,
have been given in trust, is absolutely infallible, and

66 THE A'ULE OF FA 177 f.

as this Church is none other than the Church of
Rome, the attribute of infallibility is hers to the
exclusion of all other claimants, and all men arc
bound to submit to her decisions.

THE SEAT OF THIS INFALLIBILITY.

Romanists, until recently, were not agreed re
garding the seat of this alleged infallibility, one
party, the Italian or Ultramontane party, holding
that this Divine guidance was guaranteed to the
Pope as Christ's vicegerent, and to him when speak
ing ex cathedra, or officially, while the other party,
the Gallican or Cismontanc party, holding that the
seat of the infallibility is in the Pope acting to
gether with the counsel and consent of his fellow-
bishops. In the Vatican Council of 1870, the
Ultramontane theory triumphed, and is now the
doctrine of the Church, which no Romanist may
call in question, even mentally, without incurring
by such questioning the dread penalty of excom
munication.

ROMISH ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM.

I. They argue from the end for which Christ in
stituted His Church. As He appointed and com
missioned her to teach all nations, and to be the light
of tlic world, it is not unnatural to conclude that He
would qualify her for the efficient discharge of the
duties of this great office. No measure of guidance

I.Vf-ALLfB/LMY PROMISED AVD CONFERRED. 67

which would not render her infallible in her com
munications of Divine truth, it is argued, could fit
her for the execution of the functions of this high
calling.

2. As might be expected from the very design of
her institution and the issues depending upon her
right discharge of her sacred trust, this needed
guidance was promised her. Our Lord promised to
be with her always even to the end of the \vorld,
and assured her that He would send the Holy Ghost
to lead her into all truth.

3. This promised guidance has been actually
vouchsafed. The Holy Ghost has been given, not
simply to the original Apostolatc, but to their
successors in office, as the promise implied.

4. It is argued from the admission of Protestants
who claim and exercise the prerogative of deciding
in matters of faith and practice, and of admitting or
rejecting candidates for membership, and of ex
ercising discipline upon the erring within their
respective communions, that, practically, they assume
in their own case all that Rome claims for herself.
How can a church destitute of the attribute of
Infallibility venture upon the exercise of such
prerogatives as these functions imply ?

5. Romanists urge in argument the reasonableness
of the thing claimed. What can be more reasonable
than that one man or a small number of men should
submit to the judgment of the entire Church ?

68 THE RULE OF FAITH.

To THESE ARGUMENTS PROTESTANTS REPLY —

i. That Rome errs in confounding the Church
invisible with the Church visible, the true mystical
body of Christ with the outward organisation. It is
true that Christ has promised to be with His Church
to the end of time and to lead her by His Spirit
into all truth, but the Church to which He has made
these promises is His own true Church, consisting of
none save true believers. It is vain to say that such
promises of His presence and guidance have been
made to those who are not in vital union with Him
and not dwelt in by His Spirit. As has been already
shown, if these promises were made to the external
society which Rome calls the Church, it must follow
that the external organisation, as such, shall without
fail inherit eternal life ; for it is just as true that
Christ has promised eternal life to His Church, as that
He has promised infallible guidance. If then, as
Rome herself admits, there have been many em
braced in the visible body, even many of its chief
office-bearers, including bishops, cardinals, and popes,
who were not only ignorant and foolish, but posi
tively wicked and infidel, it is manifest that there
is no alternative but to hold either that the promises
in question were not made to such, or that they,
despite their ignorance, folly, wickedness, and infidel
ity, have inherited eternal life !

2. Romanists not only confound the Church in-

ARGUMENT STATED SYLLOGISTIC ALLY, 69

visible with the outward visible organisation, but
they limit the outward organisation to the chief
pastors. The promises, they teach, were made to the
Apostles and their successors, the bishops, who arc
also Apostles. In a word, the doctrine of Infallibi
lity stands or falls with the doctrine of Apostolical
Succession. This doctrine has been syllogistically
stated as follows : —

Major — All men arc bound to receive the
teaching and submit to the authority of Apostles on
pain of perdition.

Minor — Diocesan bishops arc Apostles.

Conclusion — All men are bound to receive the
teaching and submit to the authority of diocesan
bishops on pain of perdition.

Protestants and Romanists are agreed on the
major ; Romanists and Anglicans arc at one on
both major and minor ; but all true Protestants,
while holding to the major, reject the minor as
destitute of Scriptural authority and irreconcilable
with the most unquestionable facts of history.

3. This statement of the case is most warrant
able, and it shows that one of the chief points at
issue is the Scriptural idea of the Church. As this
topic belongs to another branch, it cannot be fully
discussed here. This much, however, may be said :
that the Scriptures teach that the Church of God,
whether under the Old Testament or the New,
embraces none save those who arc the children of

70 THE RULE OF FAITH.

the promise — those who arc of faith, who are blessed
with faithful Abraham. Under the Old Testament,
a man, despite his circumcision, might not be a
Jew ; and under the New, none save those who
have been baptised with the Holy Ghost, and born
" not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God," are recognised as sons.
To such, and to such alone, whether organised or
scattered and persecuted, \vandering about in sheep
skins and goatskins, dwelling in dens and caves
of the earth, has Christ made promise of His
presence and the guidance of His Spirit. In a
word, all that is necessary to the utter overthrow
of all the arrogant claims of the Romish hierarchy
to the exclusive possession of the attributes and
prerogatives of the Church, is to establish from
Scripture the true idea of that institution.

4. Not only is the Church of Rome wrong in
regard to the import and comprehension of the
Church, but she is wrong also in regard to the
comprehension and import of the promises on which
she bases her claims. She interprets these promises
of guidance into all truth, as conveying to the
Church, in all time, a guarantee of absolute im
munity from error in regard to all matters of faith
or practice. In the case of the original Apostolate
the promise of the Spirit to lead them into all truth
secured them against all error in expounding the
way of life and completing the Revelation of the

INFALLIBILITY NEGATIVED BY HISTORY. 71

Divine will ; but these promises, so far as they were
intended for the whole Church and for all time, had
no such meaning, and conveyed no such guarantee.
They secured the entire Mystical body against funda
mental error in the interpretation of the written
word ; but this is all the conclusion that the history
of the Church, whether under the Old Testament or
the Xcw, will warrant.

5. Protestants, as already stated, argue against
the Romish claim to infallibility from the historical
fact that she has erred again and again on questions
of fundamental importance. As already stated, the
recognised authorities of the Church of Rome have
decided in favour of Arianism against the Deity of
our Lord ; in favour of Pelagianism against the
Scripture doctrine of Original Sin, human inability,
and the office work of the Holy Ghost in regenera
tion. She has, like her Old Testament prototype,
by her traditions and decisions, made void the word
of God, and marred 1 1 is temple by building upon
apostolic foundations the hay and stubble of her
own inventions.

6. Protestants argue from the clearly revealed
right and duty of private judgment. If the doctrine
of Rome be true, private judgment in matters of
faith is, of course, out of the question. The decisions
of an infallible judge cannot be submitted to any
other tribunal, public or private. Rome not only
admits this inference, but insists upon it. She will

72 THE RULE OF- FAITH.

permit no human authority to pronounce upon the
justice of her decisions. The only alternative, after
she has given her deliverance, is submission or
anathema. Every passage of Scripture, therefore,
which recognises the right and duty of private judg
ment is an argument against her assumptions as the
ultimate arbitrcss on all questions of faith and morals.
/. Protestants find an argument against Rome's
claim to Infallibility as the ultimate and exclusive
authority in the fact that Christ and His Apostles
never referred to any other arbiter than the Holy
Scriptures. " They have Moses and the prophets ;
let them hear them." " If they believe not Moses
and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded
though one rose from the dead" (Luke xvi. 29-31).
To these Christ Himself appealed in proof of His
Messiahship ; and to these also His apostles directed
their hearers. " We have," says the Apostle Peter,
" a more sure word of prophecy, whcrcunto ye do
well that ye take heed, as unto a light that
shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and
the day star arise in your hearts" (2 Peter i. 19).
There is a very notable instance of this deference
to the authority of Scripture recorded in the fifteenth
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, at the first
meeting of the General Synod at Jerusalem. There
were present ciders, Apostles, and brethren ; an
Apostolic verdict was delivered by no less a person
age than Peter himself, and yet that sentence was

ALL CHURCH AUTHORITY RASED OX SCRIPTURE. 73

not allowed to stand alone, but was confirmed by
a quotation from Scripture by the Apostle James.
This use-and-wont of Christ and His Apostles proves
conclusively the Protestant doctrine as against the
Romish ; for the appeal was simply a call upon
those before whom it was made to judge of the
harmony of the doctrine propounded by the appel
lants with the doctrine set forth in the written word.
Such an appeal establishes two things: (i) the
ultimate and supreme authority of Scripture, and
(2) the right and duty of the exercise of private
judgment, neither of which can be reconciled with
the Romish doctrine.

8. Protestants argue e concessis, from the fact that
Romanists themselves appeal to Scripture in support
of the claims of their Church as a teacher. They
quote, for example, John xvi. 13:" Howbeit when
He, the Spirit of truth, is come, lie will lead you
into all truth," etc. They quote also Matthew
xxviii. 20 : " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world. Amen." These and like passages
arc their chief reliance when they proceed to establish
their claims as the sole authoritative teachers of man
kind. In this appeal to Scripture, they concede, by
implication, all that is needed for the establishment of
the antagonistic Protestant position, for they admit
thereby that the authority of the Church to teach at
all, rests upon Scripture. But if the Church derives
her authority as a teacher from Scripture, surely the

THE RULE OF FA I TIL

same authority must be necessary for what she
teaches, and her teachings, for which its authority
cannot be adduced, cannot be regarded as obligatory
upon the consciences of men.

9. Touching the decision of the Vatican Council
regarding the seat of the infallibility, it may be
fairly claimed that that decision is self-destructive ;
for if the Council was infallible, the decision was not
true, because the point decided was that the seat of
the infallibility was not in the Council, but in the
Pope. On the other hand, if the decision was true,
the Council was not infallible ; for the thing declared
was that the Pope and not the Council was the sole
possessor of that attribute. That decision, therefore,
has placed the members of the Romish Church in a
most perplexing dilemma. If they accept the de
cision, they obey a body of men who, on their own
showing and by their own solemn decree, had no
warrant to propound the doctrine, and if they do
not obey it, they incur an anathema. In the one
case they accept the doctrine of the papal infallibility
on the authority of a council which, on its own
confession, was not infallible, and, in the other, they
reject a doctrine which was uttered by an infallible
authority.

It is therefore clear that the arguments advanced
by Romanists in support of their doctrine of Tra
dition, and of the claims of their Church as the sole,
authoritative, infallible teacher of mankind, will not

THE PROTESTANT DOCTRINE. 75

bear investigation, and equally clear that " the word
of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament is the only rule to direct
us how we may glorify and enjoy Him."

TIIK PROTESTANT DOCTRINE IN REGARD TO THE

RULE or FAITH.

Rejecting the Rationalistic, Mystical, and Romish
theories of the Rule of Faith, Protestants hold that
this Rule is contained in the Scriptures of the Old
and New Testament alone. In taking this ground
the Reformers did not regard themselves as rejecting
the historic faith of the Church, or as constructing,
for the first time, a system of Christian Dogmatics.
They were, on the contrary, as Calvin has demon
strated in his preface to his "Institutes" (his immortal
appeal to the King of the French), careful to show
that they were propounding no nc\v doctrine. Dr.
Martenscn, in his "Christian Dogmatics" (p. 34),
advances this claim as peculiar to the Lutheran
Reformation. " The Lutheran Reformation," he
says, " in its original form, took a positive atti
tude towards both dogmatic and ritual tradition, in
so far as it was (ecumenical tradition, i.e. so far as
it bore the mark of no particular church, being
neither Greek Catholic nor Roman Catholic, but
simply Catholic. Accordingly," he says, " the evan
gelical Church adopts the oecumenical symbols, the
Apostolic, the Xic;uan, and the Athanasian, as the

76 THE RULE OF FA1TIL

purest expression of dogmatic tradition. Thus
Luther's catechism retains, in the Ten Command
ments, the three creeds, the Lord's Prayer, and the
doctrine of the sacrament of baptism and of the
altar, the same fundamental elements in which
primitive Christianity was propagated among the
common people through the darkness of the middle
ages. Thus, too, the Reformers pointed to a series of
testimonies taken from the early Church, a consensus
Patnnn, in proof of the primitive character and age
of their doctrine. And Luther and Melancthon
recognised not only the importance of dogmatic
tradition, but manifested also the greatest reverence
and caution in reference to ritual tradition. The
importance which they attached to this is shown
especially in their retaining and defending, in oppo
sition to the Anabaptists, infant baptism, a custom
which is certainly derived not chiefly from the
Scriptures, but from Tradition. The same thing is
shown by their continuing to observe the principal
Christian festivals ; for these, too, were the product
of a continued tradition. In like manner they
retained many portions of the liturgy and of the
hymns of the Church, which had acquired a value for
all Christians. Thus we sec that, by their principles,
Scripture and Tradition were not torn asunder, but
only placed in their proper relation to each other.
And even if it may be said that the Reformers,
finding themselves entangled in a web of traditions,

LUTHERAN RELATION TO TRADITION. 77

in which true and false, Canonical and apocryphal
elements were almost indissolubly mixed together,
sometimes cut the knot instead of untying it, this
proves nothing against the primacy of Scripture.
For this rule cannot be annulled or altered so long
as nothing can be put beside the Scriptures that is
able to vindicate for itself the same degree of
authority " (p. 34).

This lengthened extract is given because of the
light it sheds on a point of divergence between the
two great branches of the Reformation. It is justifi
able to speak of the Protestant doctrine of the Rule
of Faith as distinguished from that held by the
Church of Rome, but it is necessary, at the same
time, to qualify the general statement by a reference
to the peculiar points on which the Lutherans and
Anglicans differ from other Protestants on this great
question. The foregoing extract is instructive in
regard to the Lutheran doctrine, although it can
hardly be considered as correct in its implicit account
of the Reformed faith on the same subject.

RK.MAKKS ON Tin; LUTHERAN POSITION.

i. The Reformed theologians, as well as the
Lutheran, held a positive attitude towards both
dogmatic and ritual tradition. They were careful,
as already stated, to show that they were not inno
vators in either doctrine or ritual. The doctrines
of the three creeds specified by Dr. Martensen, if the

7S THE RULE OF FAITH.

minute metaphysical statements of the Athanasian
Creed and its anathemas be omitted, were held by
the entire company of the representatives of the
Reformed Theology. As his "Institutes" testify,
Calvin's original object in that incomparable work
was the defence of his persecuted brethren- especially
in France, against the charges of heresy preferred
against them. For this reason he took as the frame
and outline of the work the Apostles' Creed, ex
pounding and elaborating its brief propositions in
the light of Scripture and antiquity. On the ground
of the conformity of the doctrines thus established
with the teaching of the Apostles and Prophets and
the most trusted and renowned of the Fathers, he
based his appeal to the King of the French in behalf
of his maligned and persecuted fellow-Protestants.
It cannot, therefore, be claimed that the Lutherans,
as distinguished from the Reformed, alone adopted
a positive, as distinguished from a negative attitude,
toward dogmatic tradition.

2. Nor can it be said that the Reformed theo
logians were simply negative in their attitude toward
ritual tradition. They held positively to the Sacra
ment of Infant Baptism and the Sacrament of the
Lord's Supper. But they held to both, not because
of the testimony of ecclesiastical tradition either
in whole or in part, as Dr. Martensen alleges the
Lutherans did in the instance of infant baptism,
which he regards as " derived not chiefly from

DOCTRINE OF THE REFORMED CHURCH. 79

Scripture, but from tradition." The}- retained both,
and purged them both from the incrustations where
with they had been corrupted and debased by Rome,
and effected the purgation on the Apostolic principle
of reforming abuses by reference to the original in
stitution. This principle Christ acted on in dealing
with the Jewish tradition regarding the institution of
marriage, and upon it the Apostle Paul proceeded
when reforming the Corinthian abuses connected
with their observance of the Lord's Supper.

3. As Ilagenbach's "History of Doctrine"
(vol. ii. p. 2 1 8) shows, and as the history of the
Reformation abundantly testifies, the Lutherans
differed from the Reformed theologians in the appli
cation of this principle. " Entangled in a web of
traditions, the Lutherans only sometimes cut the
knot instead of untying it," while the Reformed
always, in like circumstances, followed the example
set by Alexander the Great in dealing with the
Gordian puzzle. In other words, the Reformed did
not hesitate to apply, in ever}- instance of traditional
perplexity, a principle which the Lutherans recog
nised, but only partially applied. For this partial
application of a recognised principle, it is impossible
to offer any vindication which is not subversive of
the Protestant position as distinguished from that of
Rome.

So THE RULE OF FAITH.

THE ANGLICAN DOCTRINE OF THE RULE OF
FAITH.

Under the general head of the Protestant Rule
of Faith, it is necessary to take note of a partial
modification of the Protestant doctrine exhibited in
the articles of the Church of England. That
Church, in her sixth Article, says : " Holy Scrip
ture containeth all things necessary to salvation,
so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be
proved thereby, is not to be required of any man
that it should be believed as an article of the faith,
or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."
However, after enumerating the canonical books of
the Old Testament, said article adds, " The other
books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for
example of life and instruction of manners ; but yet
it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine."
Then follows a list of the apocryphal books, ending
with the second book of the Maccabees.

Besides this quasi recognition of the apocryphal
books, as entitled to be read in the Church, where
nothing but the word of God, prior to the departure
of the Church from primitive custom, was read
cither for example of life or instruction of manners,
the Church of England, in her twentieth Article,
advances the claim that " the Church hath power
to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in

EXAMINATION OF THE ANGLICAN DOCTRINE. 81

matters of faith," and in her thirty-fourth Article
teaches that "every particular or national church
hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, cere
monies or rites of the Church ordained only by
man's authority, so that all things be done to edify
ing." These rites and ceremonies, moreover, though
resting on the authority of man alone, may not be
broken with impunity. Those who break them
" ought to be rebuked openly, that others may learn
not to do the like, as he that offendeth against the
common order of the Church, and hurtcth the
authority of the magistrate, and woundcth the con
sciences of the weak brethren."

STRICTURES ox TIII-: ANGLICAN DOCTRINK.

1. There is here a manifest extension of the Rule
of Faith beyond the canonical Scriptures, for
although the apocryphal books may not be quoted
to establish an}- doctrine, it is difficult to sec how
the}- rnay be read for example of life and instruction
of manners without instilling principles for the regu
lation of life and the cultivation of manners ; and
this must imply the inculcation of doctrines cnun
ciated or illustrated in these books.

2. The books enumerated, and enumerated with
out distinction or caution, contain foolish stories,
and false doctrine, and examples of immoral conduct.
The effect of placing such books side by side with

82 THE RULE OF FA I TIL

the canonical Scriptures in the public worship of
God must, therefore, be to impress upon men
examples of life, which, they may conclude, should
be followed, although, as a matter of fact, the
examples are, in many instances, such as should be
avoided. Besides, the morality illustrated in some
cases, as in the case of the deception practised on
the father of Tobit by the angel, respecting his
character and lineage, if taken as an " instruction in
manners," must be subversive of all regard for truth,
and produce a very low estimate in regard to
angelic morals.

3. Under the claim of authority to ordain rites
and ceremonies is embraced the right to institute
ordinances such as " confirmation " and " consecra
tion " of churches and other sacred places. This is
a very different thing from claiming authority to
arrange for the orderly and decent administration of
a Divinely instituted ordinance. It is neither more
nor less than claiming authority to ordain means
of grace, and implies, on the part of the Church,
authority to prescribe channels through which the
sovereign grace of God shall flow to men. Protes
tantism, as exhibited in the Westminster Stan
dards, recognises the right of the Church to arrange
all matters of circumstance connected with the due
and decent observance of ordinances instituted in
the Divine word, but it sanctions nothing which
cannot be shown to come under the head of neces-

ANGLICAN DOCTRINE AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 83

sity, decency, and order, in the administration of a
clearly revealed Scriptural institution.

4. The claim of authority to institute rites and
ceremonies, as distinguished from the ordering of
the circumstances connected with the observance of
ordinances revealed in Scripture, necessarily involves
the right of adding to the Rule of Faith, for it is
a claim of authority to institute means of grace,
which implies, on the part of those who advance
it, a Divine warrant with accompanying promises
of blessing to those who devoutly engage in the
observance of such institutions. As no such warrant
and no such promises are to be found in the extant
Revelation, those who, by their instituting of such
rites, assume their existence, arc fairly chargeable
with the grave offence of adding to the word of
God.

5. It is further manifest that the claim of authority
to ordain rites and ceremonies involves the claim
of lordship over the consciences of men, for, as
already shown, it is expressly ordained (Article
XXXIV.) that "whosoever through his private judg
ment, willingly and purposely, doth openly brcak
the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which
be not repugnant to the word of God, and be
ordained and approved by common authority, ought
to be rebuked openly 'that others may fear to do
the like), as he that offcndcth against the common
order of the Church, and hurtcth the authority of

S4 THE RULE OF FAITH.

the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of
the weak brethren." It is true there is here an
apparently saving clause in the qualifying phrase
11 which be not repugnant to the word of God " ; but
the clause does not furnish a safeguard against
the usurpation of dominion over conscience, as a
thing " not repugnant to the word of God " is
simply a matter of indifference, respecting which
there is a clearly revealed rule of Scripture which
precludes all attempts at discipline on the part of
the Church. In all such matters the rule is, that
every one must be persuaded in his own mind.
This rule guarantees the right of private judgment,
which the article in question condemns, and in doing
so departs from the Protestant doctrine touching
the Rule of Faith and substitutes the authority
of the Church for the authority of the only Lord
of conscience. A thing of indifference is a matter
in regard to which Christ has not legislated, and,
consequently, a matter in which He has left His
people free : no man and no society of men,
whether ecclesiastical or civil, may attempt to bind
them. All such attempts, on whatsoever pretext,
are simply a usurpation of the prerogatives of the
sole King and Head of the Church. The powers
of the Church are executive and not legislative,
ministerial and not magisterial. The claim to
institute rites and ceremonies and to discipline for
the breach of them is a claim to legislate ; and this

ANGLICAN' DOCTRINE AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 85

is all one with the claim of headship over Christ's
Church, for a second lawgiver is a second source of
authority having the right to demand submission to
a second code of la\vs, and this is neither less nor
more than a usurpation of the rights and preroga
tives of Christ as Head of His mystical body the
Church. The recognition of such claims is an act
of disloyalty to Christ, and obedience to such laws
is disobedience to the only Lawgiver who can save
and who can destroy, while the obedience rendered
lacks an essential clement of piety, as it is not
rendered out of regard to the revealed will of God.

LECTURE IV.

THE PROTESTANT DOCTRINE OF THE RULE OF
FAITH (continued).

/CLEARED of the foregoing Lutheran and
^-^ Anglican modifications, the Protestant doc
trine of the Rule of Faith embraces the following
points : —

I. That the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testament, to the exclusion of the apocryphal books
and Tradition, contain all the extant word of God.
2. That they furnish the only infallible rule of faith
and practice. 3. That the rule contained therein is
complete, embracing all that man is to believe con
cerning God, and all the duty that God requires of
man. 4. That these Scriptures are perspicuous, so
plain that in the exercise of proper attention and
diligence in the study of them, the will of God, in
regard to all matters of faith and practice, may be
infallibly ascertained. 5. As a corollary from the
character and design of the Sacred Scriptures, Pro
testants hold that it is the duty of all who have
access to them to study them faithfully, and decide
on their testimony what God requires them to
believe and do.

SHORT METHOD WITH ROMANISTS, 87

A SHORT ANSWER TO SOMK OHJI-XTIONS TO THE
PROTESTANT DOCTRINE OF THE CANON OF
SCRIPTURE URGED BY ROMANISTS.

One of these objections which, Romanists allege,
lie exclusively against the Protestant doctrine of
the Canon, is that some books referred to in the
Old Testament, and some epistles mentioned in
the New, have been lost. This objection, if it
has any force at all, is really fatal to the claims
of Rome. Assuming this allegation regarding these
lost books and epistles to be true, what follows ?
The inevitable conclusion is, either that these
missing books and epistles were not intended to
constitute a portion of the permanent sacred record,
or that both the Old Testament Church and the
New Testament Church have proved unfaithful to
the trust reposed in them by the Author of the
Revelation. On either horn of this dilemma the
Romish objector must be hopelessly impaled. As
he dare not accept the former without neutralising
his objection, his only alternative is to acknowledge
that under both dispensations the Church has proved
unfaithful as the custodian of the sacred oracles.

This is a grave alternative for a Romanist, for
the Church of Rome claims, in the face of facts,
to have been entrusted with the whole Revelation
as its Divinely appointed guardian and administra
trix. But if such have been her relations to the

83 THE RULE OF FAITH.

oracles of God, how has it come to pass that these
books and epistles have been lost ? She cannot
absolve herself by throwing the blame upon her
Old Testament predecessors in office, for our Saviour
Himself has exonerated the Old Testament Church
from the charge of faithlessness as the custodian of
the Old Testament Scriptures, having simply pre
ferred against her the charge which Protestants
prefer against the Church of Rome — the charge of
making void the word of God through her traditions.
But who shall exonerate the Church of Rome from
the charge, self-preferred, of letting slip from her
custody whole books and epistles of that one
Revelation of which she claims to have been con
stituted the sole guardian ? If she has been the
ordained stewardess of the mysteries of God, which
she claims to have been, this confession is sufficient
to prove that it is time she should give an account
of her stewardship, for it is manifest, on her own
showing, that she should be no longer stewardess
As another proof of the defectiveness of the Pro
testant Canon, it has been urged by Romanists
that the original of Matthew's Gospel, which the
objector alleges was written in Hebrew, has been
lost. To this objection, the answer given to its
predecessor may be urged with equal force and
pertinency. Assuming that Matthew's Gospel was,
as the objector alleges, written in Hebrew, and that
both the original and all copies of it have been lost,

ROMISH OBJECTIONS BASELESS AXD SUICIDAL. 89

who is to blame ? Docs the loss of the treasure
not prove the inefficiency or the faithlessness of the
treasurer? How is Rome to reconcile her claims
to plenary endowment for the execution of her
functions as the sole guardian of this sacred trust
with the loss of these important documents ? She
has manifestly no alternative on her own showing
but to submit to the charge of incapacity or un
faithfulness, and this is a grave alternative for an
infallible custodian cf the Rule of Faith.

As to this alleged loss of this alleged Hebrew
gospel, suffice it to say that, if we are to credit
Pope Sixtus V., there was no such document to
lose. In his preface to his revision of the Latin
Vulgate, this infallible revisionist accepts the rule
laid down by Jerome, and endorsed by Augustine,
for the settlement of questions arising from variation
among manuscripts. His words arc : " Sapicntcr
B. Hieronymus in cxplanandis Sacris Scripturis
Doctor maximus admonebat, ut quemadmodum in
novo Testamento, si quando apud Latinos quajstio
exoritur, et cst inter cxemplaria varictas, ad fontcm
Grajci sermonis, quo novum Tcstamentum cst
Scriptum, recurri solct ; ita si quando inter Gra^cos
Latinosque diversitas cst in vetcri Testamento, tune
ad Hebraicam rccurramus vcritatem, ut quidquid de
fonte proficiscitur, hoc qurcrimus in rivulis ; quod
ctiam B. Augustinus iis, qui Scripturam tractant, inter
alias regulas tradidit." Here then is the way in

90 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

which Jerome, Augustine, and Pope Sixtus V.
would have settled the question regarding the
accuracy of the translation of Matthew's Gospel.
They would not have gone in search of an alleged
Hebrew original, because they believed that the
New Testament (the whole of it) was written in
Greek. It is true Jerome once believed the theory
of a Hebrew original of this gospel, but he after
ward abandoned that opinion and accepted the
theory that it was written in Greek — a theory
endorsed, as the above quotation proves, by an
infallible pope.

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

Having discussed, under the head of the Romish
rule of faith, the questions respecting the perfection
and perspicuity of Scripture, the only question
remaining for consideration is the infallibility of
Scripture. To serve as a rule of faith and life the
Scriptures must be infallible, and to be infallible
they must be the word of God, and to be the word
of God they must be Divinely inspired. We are
thus brought face to face with one of the most
important questions within the whole range of
Theology, and which at present is absorbing more
attention than any other, viz. the question of In
spiration. The foes as well as the friends of Chris
tianity feel that this question is fundamental, and

RELATION OF THE WORD TO FAITH. 91

the assailants as well as the defendants are acting
in accordance with their convictions. The estimate
on which both proceed is not a mistaken one. Faith
is correlative to testimony, and saving faith is based
upon the testimony of God Himself, and no book
can serve as a foundation for faith which cannot
furnish proof of its Divine origin. In a word,
nothing can serve as a rule of faith, nothing can
satisfy the conditions of the rise and progress of
religion in the soul, except the very word of God.
lie is not a Christian who believes or obeys
Matthew, or John, or Peter, or Paul. Our faith, and
obedience, and love must terminate on God. No
subjective affections which arc destitute of this
Godward reference can be considered religious.
In all our religious experiences, in all our inter
course with the Bible, this principle is recognised :
" Faith comcth by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God " (Rom. x. 1 7). It is God's word
that faith hears, and it is to God that the believer
gives ear. A man is born again, not by the corrup
tible seed of man's word, but by the incorruptible
seed of the word of God, which liveth and abideth
for ever (i Peter i. 23). The voice which makes
a man's heart tremble in the reading of the law
not the voice of man, but the voice of God. The
voice which waked the spiritually dead in Christ's
day was the voice of the Son of God, and it is the
same voice which wakes the spiritually dead now.

akcs i
wjsj

92 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

The word on which the soul rests when it accepts
the invitations of the Gospel must, if the act be an
act whereby the soul comes to God, be none other
than the very word of God. The promises which
a Christian man pleads at the mercy seat are always
regarded by him as promises made by Him who
cannot lie, promises to every syllable of which His
truth and faithfulness are pledged. On this assump
tion all his wrestlings proceed, and on it all his
pleas are founded. Prayer is God's remembrancer,
and it is to uttered promises it points. Its language
is : " Hast Thou not promised ? " What errand has
any sinner, or what right of approach, in prayer, if
he has not as his warrant the Divine word pledged
in the promises of God ? In brief, the necessity
of an infallible rule, a rule whose infallibility arises
from the fact that it consists of the words of Him
who cannot deceive, is laid in the very nature of
religion in its rise and progress in the soul. All
theories, therefore, whose tendency is to shake confi
dence in the doctrine that the Scriptures of the Old
and New Testament, in which alone the Rule of Faith
is found, are the word of God, must be injurious to
vital godliness, and, where accepted in full conscious
ness of their legitimate consequences, must be, not only
injurious to piety, but altogether subversive of faith.

INSPIRATION AND REVELATION.
Ruled by mere etymological considerations, some

IMPORT OF

have confounded Inspiration with Revelation. As
^eoV^eucrTos means God-breathed, sucli writers
have restricted the act expressed by that term to
the communication of truth to the sacred writers,
and have held that the Divine agency ceased with
the communication of the message to the messenger,
leaving him free in the delivery of it to others,
whether orally or in writing. This argument from
etymology, however, is not in harmony with the
history of the Divine communications, and may
be at once dismissed. It is not by mere etymology,
but by the usage of terms as they arc employed by
standard writers, that their meaning is to be ascer
tained.

It is true that ^eoTT^evcrTo? means God-breathed,
but this fact does not warrant the conclusion that
the final object of the inbreathing was the communi
cation of information to the human agent. On the
contrary, as all the communications recorded in the
Sacred Scriptures were intended for the instruction
of others besides the agents themselves, the most
reasonable conclusion is that the inbreathing was
designed to render the agents infallible mediums for
the communication of the knowledge imparted to
them to others ; and as this infallibility could be
secured only by the continuance of the Divine
agency until the message was delivered, cither orally
or in writing, it is certainly not too much to assume
that it would not cease until this the final end was

94 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

attained. This assumption receives a very striking
confirmation in the very passage in which #eo-
Tn'euorros occurs (2 Tim. iii. 1 6), for it is there
employed as qualifying, not the sacred writers, but
the sacred writing. This is worthy of special note,
as a recent advocate of " the ne\ver criticism," in
attempting to overthrow the doctrine of Plenary
Inspiration, has appealed to this passage as a proof
that the record, and not the writers, was the subject
of the OeoTTvevcTTLa. This concession, of course,
implies all for which the advocates of Verbal In
spiration contend, for in conceding that the record
was God-breathed, it concedes, by manifest implica
tion, that the Divine afflatus reached the writing
through the writers. An inspired record penned by
uninspired penmen is, of course, an absolute im
possibility.

This style of argumentation, and the confusion of
thought underlying it, shows the importance of the
comparatively modern distinction between Revelation
and Inspiration. Dr. Chalmers very happily dis
criminates the two ideas by the antithetical terms
influx and efflux, designating the process of Revela
tion by the former and the inspiring agency by the
latter. In the influx the Divine communication was
effectually borne in upon the mind of the sacred
writer, and in the efflux the knowledge thus com
municated was infallibly expressed to others, either
orally or in writing. " By Revelation," says Dr. Lee,

REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 95

" I understand a direct communication from God to
man either of such knowledge as man could not of
himself attain to, because its subject matter tran
scends human sagacity or human reason — such, for
example, were the prophetical announcements of the
future, and the peculiar doctrines of Christianity — or
the communication of information which, although it
might have been attained in the ordinary way, was
not, in point of fact, from whatever cause, known to
the person who received the Revelation. Hy In
spiration, on the other 'hand, I understand that
actuating energy of the Holy Spirit in whatever
degree or manner it ma}- have been exercised, guided
by which the human agents chosen by God have
officially proclaimed His will by word of mouth, or
have committed to writing the several portions of
the Bible" ("Inspiration of Holy Scripture," Lcct. I.
P- 30;.

In illustration of this distinction Dr. Lee refers to
revelations received by the patriarchs, who, although
favoured with such Divine communications, were not
inspired to place them on record for the instruction
of others, and cites the case of " the writer of the
Acts of the Apostles, who," he says, " was inspired
for his task, but we are not told that he ever enjoyed
a revelation." Without endorsing this view of
Luke's relation to what he wrote, or to the Divine
communications made to the ministers of the word
in Apostolic times, it serves well enough as an

96 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

illustration of the distinction in question. Revelation
had to do with the subjective informing of the human
agent, and Inspiration had to do with the actuating
and energising of the agent in giving forth, in audi
ble utterance or in writing, that which was made
known to him by Revelation. The knowledge
communicated to John in Patmos was imparted to
him by Revelation ; our knowledge of what John
saw and heard has been communicated to us by
Inspiration.

In his " Theopncustia," Gaussen very accurately
marks this distinction. " This miraculous operation
of the Holy Ghost," he says, " had not the sacred
writers themselves for its object, for these were
only His instruments, and were soon to pass away,
but its objects were the holy books themselves,
which were destined to reveal from age to age to the
Church the counsels of God, and which were never
to pass away." His idea is that if the writers them
selves had been the object of the miraculous agency
in question, the process would be properly designated
a process of Revelation, whereas Inspiration has
regard to the communication of truth to others
through the medium of those who are themselves
the subject of the inspiring agency.

INSPIRATION AND ILLUMINATION.

And as Inspiration is to be distinguished from
Revelation, so is it to be distinguished from that

INSPIRATION EXTENDS TO THE LA \GUAGE. 97

illumination by which the Holy Spirit opens the
eyes of the understanding to apprehend the truths
of Revelation. The object aimed at in illumination
is to make the subjects of it wise unto salvation, to
impart unto them that knowledge of God, as He is
•revealed in Christ, which is, in its very nature, eter.ua!
life. From its very nature, therefore, illumination is
limited to the people of God, as none but they have
such apprehensions of truth, while men who were
not themselves possessed of the saving knowledge of
the truth have sometimes been made the vehicle of
Revelation and inspired to communicate it to others.

INSJ'IRATION K.Vl'ENDS TO THE LANGUAGE
EMPLOYED.

1 he term commonly employed by orthodox writers
to indicate the fulness and perfection of the Divine
agency in Inspiration is the epithet "plenary." As
this term is now employed by those whose views
of Inspiration arc not altogether satisfactory, it is
best to employ the term Verbal Inspiration, which
properly understood expresses the doctrine of Scrip
ture on this subject. By Verbal Inspiration is
meant such an agency of the Holy Spirit as ren
dered the sacred writers absolutely infallible in the
communication of the Divine will to men, determin
ing not only the substance (which were all one with
Revelation), but the fown also of the message they

98' SCRIPTURE DOC'lRfhE OF INSPIRATION.

were commissioned to deliver, and extending, not
simply to the ideas (which were Revelation again),
but reaching to the words in which the Revelation
was conveyed. As Gaussen admirably expresses it,
"God -Himself has not only put His seal to all these
facts, and constituted Himself the Author of all these-
commands and the Revealer of all these truths, but
further He has caused them to be given to His Church
in the order, and in the measure, and in the terms
which He has deemed most suitable to His heavenly
purpose." Such is the doctrine of Inspiration which
it is now proposed to establish, and in support of
it the following arguments are submitted : —

i. In the first place, such agency as is implied
in Verbal Inspiration seems to be demanded by the
nature of the case. If God proposed to make a
revelation of His will to men, He would doubtlessly
employ all the means necessary to ensure the faithful
and accurate communication of it. For this end,
however, no means which left the language absolutely
to man could be sufficient. There docs not seem
to be much room for argument here. The intro
duction of the agency of man was confessedly the
introduction of an element of weakness and fallibility,
which, if not overborne and controlled by the agency
of the Divine and infallible, must issue in a fallible
communication. The men employed might be
honest, but honest men may err both in regard to
their own apprehension of what they see and hear,

THE RELATION OF LANGUAGE TO THOUGHT. 99

and in regard to the language they employ in com
municating their impressions to others. If men
with their passions and prejudices, men with their
liability to misconception, men deficient in know
ledge, and defective in memory, and prone to all- the
inaccuracy incident to the use of human language as
a vehicle of thought, are introduced as the medium
of communication, nothing short of an inspiration
which extended to and determined the laniruatre

t> o

employed, initiating, conducting, and completing the
entire process, could possibly secure an infallible record.
2. Closely connected with this point is the argu
ment from the connection which obtains between
language and thought, between words and ideas,
between the conceptions of the mind and the
symbols by which the mind endeavours to give ex
pression to them in communicating them to others.
Thought intrinsically invests itself with an habili
ment of language, and is never regarded as complete
until it is expressed in words. Indeed, some go so
far as to say that thought is never matured until' it
is expressed in writing. Without endorsing this
opinion, this much may be said : that written
language is the most perfect vehicle of thought.
All that is necessary to the present argument, how
ever, is the unquestionable fact that our ideas are
inseparable from language. It has been well said
that it is just as impossible fur thoughts to come
into tangible objective, existence without language,

ioo SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

as it is for souls to be born without bodies. From
this it must follow that an ideal inspiration, as dis
tinguished from a verbal inspiration, is an utter
impossibility. If the inspiration extended to the
perfecting of the idea, it must have extended to the
determination of the words without which the idea
was still unformed and imperfect. Divine guidance
within the former sphere can never be fairly sepa
rated from Divine guidance within the latter. The
artist who simply furnishes the material of the future
figure which is to express his own ideal and leaves
the mould to be supplied by another not in posses
sion t)f that ideal, would be acting exactly on the
same principle as that advocated by the ideal
inspirationists. To secure the result aimed at, the
artist must go far beyond what the idealist regards
as necessary. He must make a model representation
of his conception, and from that model he must take
a cast which constitutes the mould into which he
pours the material of the future figure ; or taking the
model furnished 'out of plastic material as the
standard ideal, he chips, and chisels the marble or
other material into the closest possible conformity
to the ideal standard. As is the model, so will the
mould or the future figure be. An imperfect model
or an imperfect mould will produce an imperfect
figure, and so far as its imperfection extends will it
mar the original ideal. And so, and not otherwise,
will the result be in the publication and exhibition

CHRlSrS ESTIMATE OF APOSTOLIC TAl.EXTS. 101

to men of the archetypes of truth which were hidden
in the mind of God before all worlds. The accuracy
of the representation, and the harmony of the doc
trine revealed, with the Divine ideal, will, be deter
mined, ultimately, by the accuracy of the verbal
mould into which the Revelation has been cast. In
other words, the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration, of
which some, who claim to be advanced thinkers, and
who would have men believe that they speak in the
interests of Christianity and Philosophy, speak with
contempt, is, after all, the only doctrine in harmony
with the laws which govern the relation of thought
to language, or that furnishes a sufficient guarantee
of the infallible accuracy of the Revelation trans
mitted to us in the Sacred Scriptures.

3. The necessity thus established was recognised
by Christ. Although the Apostles had abundant
opportunity during His earthly ministration of seeing
His mighty works and hearing His discourses, lie
nevertheless did not regard them as qualified for the
task of witnessing for Him without a very special
influence from above. After telling them that they
were His witnesses He immediately intimates their
need of the gift of the Holy Ghost to qualify them
for the work of witness-bearing. " Ye are," He says,
" My witnesses of these things, and behold, I send
the promise of My Father upon you ; but tarry ye
in the city of Jerusalem, until yc be endued with
power from on high " (Luke xxiv. 48, 49).

102 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

Now surely if there were historical facts not requir
ing supernatural aid for their rehearsal, one might
suppose that those of which the Apostles were com
missioned to bear witness might be regarded as
belonging to that class. The things of which they
were to testify were things, one would think, they
could never forget. They were things which had
engraven themselves indelibly upon their minds.
Could they ever forget the capture in Gethsemane,
or the closing scene on Calvary, or the triumph of
the resurrection of their Lord ? These were the
great burden of their testimony — how that Christ
died for our sins and that He was raised for our
justification. Yet these are the things for the
publication of which the Saviour felt and avowed
their need of preparation, and it was with reference
to their equipment for testifying concerning these
never-to-be-forgotten facts that He commands them
to tarry in the city of Jerusalem. He sends them
not forth immediately, but enjoins them to await the
endowment from on high, to be communicated by
the gift of the Holy Ghost. Is it not manifest from
this injunction that He regarded it as indispensable
to their qualification as witnesses even to historical
facts enacted before their eyes — facts which must
have branded themselves on their inmost souls —
that they should not be left to the exercise of their
natural powers of apprehension and memory in
administering such a trust ?

EXTEXT OF THE SPIRITS AGENCY. 103

In conformity with this estimate of their capacity
is the promise made by Christ in John xv. 26, 27 :
" But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth,
which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify
of Me. And yc also shall bear witness, because yc
have been with Me from the beginning." Thir "s a
very remarkable* promise. One would almost think
that it was originally uttered, not simply for the sake
of those immediately concerned, but with special
reference to the theory that in matters of which the
sacred writers had personal cognisance, there was no
need of Inspiration, but simply of intelligence and
fidelity.

Corresponding to the foregoing, and bearing still
further upon the same point, arc two passages in
John xvi. 12, 13, and xvi. 26: "I have many things
to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Ilowbcit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He
will guide you into all truth, for lie shall not speak
of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall
He speak, and He will show you things to come.'
And, if possible, still more conclusive is the language
of the latter passage : " Hut the Comforter, which is
the Holy Ghost, whonn the Father will send in My
name, He shall teach you all things and bring all
things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said
unto you."

Now consider the range of subjects of which

104

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

according to these t\vo passages, the Holy Ghost
was to inform the disciples of Christ. I. All things
of which Christ had Himself in person informed
them already. 2. Things which He could not tell
them just then because of their inability to bear
them. 3. Things to come. 4. And, as if to cover
everything which by any possibility might be cpn-
strued as not embraced under these comprehensive
categories, He was to guide them into all truth.
To render His disciples infallible witness-bearers
within all these spheres, our Saviour promised to
send upon them the gift of the Holy Ghost. Is it
not manifest that throughout the wide range of
this all-comprehending classification of subjects, the
absolute necessity of the agency of the Holy Ghost
was recognised ?

If it be said that the promise had reference to the
revelation of these truths to the disciples themselves,
and not to the communication of them to others, all
that is necessary in reply is to refer to the language
employed and the design of the endowment. The
language of the passages now adduced proves beyond
doubt that the Spirit was to be given in order to
qualify the disciples as witnesses. For this purpose
He was to "bring all things to their remembrance,"
etc., etc., and the end aimed at in the gift could not
be regarded as attained when the reminiscence of
an old fact or an old truth was recalled or a new
one communicated. The recall or the fresh -com-

VERBAL INSPIRATION AND PENTECOSTAL GIFTS. 105

munication was subordinate to the end of witness-
bearing, and the agency by which the agent was
informed for his task, we are warranted in conclud
ing, would not cease to operate until the testimony
was uttered, whether orally or in writing.

4. The argument from the promise itself is con
firmed by the remarkable manner in which it was
fulfilled. The disciples tarry at Jerusalem, according
to their Master's injunction, and await the promise
of the Father from the hand of their ascended Lord.
What is the testimony of the fulfilment of that
promise in regard to the extent of their inspiration ?
Was it an inspiration as to substance, or did it
extend to the form and language of the message ?
" They were," we are told, " all filled with the Holy
Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as
the Spirit gave them utterance," so that the hetero
geneous assemblage of men out of every nation
under heaven heard them speak, every man in his
own tongue, the wonderful works of God. Here
was certainly an influence vouchsafed which extended
to words. It was, however, an influence which
came clown upon the disciples in fulfilment of the
promised qualification. The outward symbols of the
gifts bestowed bespeak an inspiration which extended
to the language of the message they were to utter.
Tongues are not mere symbols of ideas or thoughts.
On the contrary, from their very nature, they indicate
the medium whereby thought obtains expression.

io6 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

Thus qualified, the Apostle Peter, who was certainly
in a position to judge of the design of the miraculous
cndowrrlcnt conferred upon him, entered upon the
work to which he had been called and for which
he soon gave evidence that he was qualified ; and
it will, be observed that the things of which he bears
witness belong to that class of things for the pro
clamation of which some allege he needed no
supernatural guidance at all, or at most only a
general superintendence.

5. This argument from the necessity of the case
is greatly strengthened by a reference to the work
to which the Apostles were called. To them was
assigned the work of expounding the Gospel preached
before to Abraham and the saints of the Old Testa
ment, and of showing that all that was foreshadowed
in the types, and signified in the symbols, of the
ancient economics, had been fulfilled in Christ Jesus.
Their natural unfitness for the accomplishment of
such a mighty task is too palpably impressed in
their history prior to the day of Pentecost to justify
any lengthened proof. Let the case of Peter him
self serve as an example. Of all the truths of the
Old Testament Revelation, the most important was
the expiation of sin by atonement through sacrificial
blood. Yet this great truth, which lay at the very
heart of the Mosaic economy, as it had at the heart
of every preceding economy, had not been appre
hended by Peter as one that was to have its true

IXFEKE\CE FROM CHARACTER OF THE RECORD. 107

expression and full significance in the atoning death
of Christ. So little idea had he of the relation of
all that sacrificial symbolism to Christ, that when
Christ broached to His disciples the subject of His
death, he began to rebuke Him, saying, "That be
far from Thee." And what is true of Peter was
true of them all. They had gross misconceptions
regarding both the King and the kingdom they
were to be commissioned to proclaim. Such men,
untaught by the direct agency of the Holy Ghost,
were utterly unfit to inaugurate the new dispensa
tion ; and left to themselves cither in their conceptions
of the rank, or the mission, of the Messiah, or in
their attempts to instruct others in the mysteries
of Redemption, they must have utterly failed to
comprehend the Old Testarrtent Revelation, or to
communicate to men "an authoritative and infallible
account of the unsearchable riches of Christ.

6. Now if we turn from the consideration of the
work as a task to be achieved to the contemplation
of it as actually accomplished, we shall find our
selves in the presence of a problem defying all
attempts at solution save on the assumption of an
absolutely plenary verbal inspiration. These evan
gelists have succeeded in portraying the grandest
character that has ever appeared on the stage of
time. Speaking of this achievement, Prebendary
Row, in his Hampton Lectures on " Christian
Evidences viewed in relation to Modern Thought "

io8 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

(second edition, p. 179), says: "It is the grandest
character known to history. Not only have all the
^rcatcst and best of men bowed before it in humble

adoration, but very many eminent unbelievers have
confessed its greatness and perfection. Even those
who deny its historical reality cannot help allowing
that it is the grandest ideal creation of the human
mind. Equally certain is it that whether the
character be an ideal or an historical one, if has
proved for eighteen centuries the mightiest influence
for good which has been exerted on mankind. . . .
Another fact, apparent on the surface of the Gospels,
has. a most important bearing on this question. Of
this great character they present us with no formal
delineation. Nothing is more common than for or
dinary historians to Furnish us with formal por
traitures of the characters of the persons whose
actions they narrate, and to render them the meed
of praise or blame. All this is totally wanting in
the pages of the Evangelists. Not one of them has
attempted to depict the character of the Master.
Yet so conspicuously does it stand forth in them
that it is obvious to every reader, and .produces a
more distinct impression than the most elaborate
delineation. The almost entire absence of praise or
blame assigned to the different agents in the scenes
which they depict is a most striking feature in the
Evangelists. The absence of the expression of any
personal feeling on the part of the writers seems

TESTIMONY OF ROUSSEAU AND MILL. 109

almost like coldness. They have not one word in
commendation of the absolute self-sacrifice mani
fested in their Master's life, nor of His unwearied
labours in doing good, nor of His benevolence,
His holiness, or His humility, or any of the striking
traits of His character. They must have viewed
His death as the most atrocious of murders ; yet
not one word have they uttered for the purpose
of heightening the effect of His cruel sufferings,
or even of drawing our attention to His patient
endurance."

Nor is this estimate of the work achieved by
the Evangelists peculiar to Christian writers. The
following passage from Rousseau, quoted by the
Prebendary, speaks of it in the same strain of
admiration. " The Gospel," he says, " has marks
of truth so great, so striking, so perfectly inimitable,
that the inventor of it would be more astonishing
than the hero. If the life and death of Socrates
are those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus
arc those of a God." Mr. Wirt, the author of " The
British Spy," refers to a very striking effect pro
duced by the quotation of this last sentence in a
sacramental address which he heard delivered by
Mr. Waddell, the celebrated blind preacher of West
ern Virginia.

John Stuart Mill, in his essays on "Theism"
(p. 2 5 2), puts the case with great force. " Who
among the disciples of Jesus or among the proselytes

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to
Jesus, or of imagining the life and character re
vealed in the Gospels ? Certainly not the fishermen
of Galilee ; as certainly not St. Paul."

The question which Mr. Row, in considering
these facts, thinks " urgently demands solution,"
is — « If a large portion" of the Gospels consists
of myths and legends, how has the delineation got
into their pages ? " This is in the connection in
which it occurs in his lectures on the Evidences a
most appropriate question, and admits of but one
answer, viz. that apart from the actual" enactment
of the life and death they describe, the Evangelists
had never produced the Gospel narratives. The
facts adduced, however, \varrant a larger conclusion
than Mr. Row, as his lecture on Inspiration in the
same book shows, will admit. The very doctrine
of Verbal Inspiration, against which that lecture has
been written, is the only one which will account
for the wondrous achievement which has arrested
the attention, and excited the astonishment, of
friend and foe. The structure of the narratives,
the self-abnegation of the writers, the utter repres
sion of all feelings of revenge towards the murderers
of their Lord, together with the absence of all
remarks commendatory of His self-sacrificing love
or condemnatory of the cruelty of His enemies, and
the simple majesty of the style in which the un
adorned facts are allowed to tell the story of the

THE INSCRUTABLE NESS OP THE MYSTERIES, in

Man of sorrows, bespeak an inspiration which took
possession of every passion and power of the human
agents, arid extended, not only to the selection of the
facts, but to the disposition of them, not only to the
substance, but to the form and language in which
it has been so felicitously expressed. On any other
assumption than that of Verbal Inspiration, the
sacred narratives of the four Evangelists present an
unsolvable problem. It is difficult to conceive any
thing more unreasonable, or more at variance with
the personal characteristics of the men, as manifested
in their intercourse with one another and with their
common Master, or with His estimate of them, as
indicated in the rebukes lie administered to their
rivalry and self-assertion, and in the restrictions
wherewith He accompanied their commission, and
the provision vouchsafed for the execution of it;
than to assume that to such men would be left the
selection and arrangement of the materials, historical
and doctrinal, through which the personal rank and
character and work of the Son of God were to be
revealed for the salvation of men. Theories, how
ever plausible, which proceed upon such assumptions,
if they do not originate in, must, if logically carried
out, end in, defective views of man's fallen estate
and of the remedy provided in. the person and work
of the Redeemer and the office work of the Holy
Ghost. It is hardly credible that any one believing
what the Scriptures declare respecting the unsearch-

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

ablencss of the mystery that was hid in God,
mysteries known only to the Son, who alone was
commissioned to reveal them, mysteries which He
was qualified to reveal by the unction of the Holy
Ghost, who alone searchcth the deep things of God
— it is hardly credible that any one believing all
this and believing, at the same time, what the
Scriptures declare respecting the native darkness and
depravity of men in their fallen estate, could believe
that such mysteries would be committed to any
class of sinful men for utterance, or for record,
under the guidance of a partial, and therefore im
perfect, inspiration. This may by some be pro
nounced a priori reasoning, but it is reasoning whose
premisses are furnished by the Scripture account of
the ruin and recovery of men.

LECTURE V.

INSPIRATION OF CHRIST.

T3UT the argument drawn from the necessity of
-*-* the case reaches its climax in the case of
Christ Himself. To understand the full force of the
argument furnished by the equipment of Christ for
the office of prophecy, it is necessary to recur to
the normal prediction respecting His rise recorded
in Deuteronomy xviii. 15-19: "The LORD thy God
will raise up unto thce a Prophet from the midst
of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me ; unto Him
ye shall hearken ; according to all that thou
desircdst of the LORD thy God in Horcb in the
day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again
the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me sec
this great fire any more, that I die not. And the
LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that
which they have spoken. I will raise them up a
Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thec,
and I will put My words in His mouth; and He shall
speak unto them all that I shall command Him."
This prophecy is rightly regarded as a Messianic
prophecy, embracing all the typical prophets that

n4 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

should arise in Israel prior to the actual advent of
Him to whom Moses and all the prophets bare
witness, and the doctrine the passage teaches is
that in the execution of His prophetic office He
would be God's Messenger and deliver the message
to men as lie received it from God. According to
the promise here made, the words the Messianic
Prophet was to use were to be words put in His
mouth, and what He was to speak was to be what
God should command Him.

Our warrant for the application of this promise
to Christ, in its fullest sense, seems to be unquestion
able. The application has been made by Christ
Himself (John xii. 49, 50): "I have not spoken
of Myself ; but the Father which sent Me, He gave
me a commandment what I should say" (ei7ro>) "and
what I should speak " (XaXw). " And I know that
His commandment is everlasting life. Whatsoever I
speak " (XaXw; " therefore, even as the Father said "
(€ipir)K€v) " unto Me, so I speak " (XaXwj. In the
same strain does our Saviour recognise His official
subordination as a Prophet, and His dependence
upon the Father, in that wondrous prayer (John
8), "I have given unto them the words"
(TO. pTJfjiaTa) "which Thou hast given Me, and they
have received them, and have known surely that I
came out from Thee, and they have believed that
Thou didst send Me." It was on the ground of the
original Dcutcronomic promise that the Jews looked

C//AVS7 A.\D THE DRUTERONOMIC PROPHECY. 115

for the rise of a particular Prophet distinguished
pre-eminently above all others. Because of this ex
pectation the Jews sent priests and Lcvitcs from
Jerusalem to question the Baptist respecting this
among other things : whether he \verc that Prophet.
John disclaimed all right to such prophetic honour,
and informed them that lie was simply the fore
runner of Another, intimating, at the same time, the
high rank of Him whom he was sent to introduce.
The question put to John about the Prophet proves
the prevalence of the expectation of a particular
Prophet, an expectation that could have arisen in
Israel only in consequence of the Dcutcronomic
prediction. When, therefore, our Lord appropriates
and applies to Himself the language of that prc
diction, He must be regarded as claiming, and
would be understood by the Jews as claiming, to
be the Great Prophet whom the God of Israel had,
through His servant Moses, promised to raise up.
This identification, however, involves the conclusion
that He, in His prophetic capacity, received the
messages I Te delivered from God the Father, and
that these messages were not given to Him for
communication in a vague indefinite way, or (as the
custom with some is to express it) " as to sub
stance, but not as to form." In conformity with
the original normal promise, the language in which
He delivered the messages to men, was language
taught Him of the Father.

n6 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

But the Scriptures shed still greater light upon
Christ's equipment for the execution of this Messianic
function of prophecy. As one might infer from the
very name Messiah, He was anointed for this office,
and as the unction He received was the unction of
the Holy Ghost, it must follow that for the execution
of this function He needed the baptism of the Spirit.
We are, however, not left to inference or conjecture
in regard to this matter. It is expressly stated that
the Spirit of the Lord was given Him for this very
purpose. " The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
because the LORD hath anointed Me to preach
good tidings unto the meek ; He hath sent Me to
bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to
the captives and the opening of the prison to them
that arc bound," etc. (Isa. Ixi. I, 2).

This passage our Lord applied to Himself in the
synagogue at Nazareth, and thus put the reference
beyond all possibility of doubt (Luke iv. 16-2 1).
This appropriation of this prophecy not only iden
tifies our Saviour with the appointed Herald of
Israel's jubilee, but formally recognises, as one of
the qualifications for the proclamation of it, the
unction of the Holy Ghost. In harmony with the
prediction, and with the recognition of its application
to Himself, is the historic incident of the descent
upon Him of the Holy Ghost, at His baptism by
John. This baptism, as the narrative shows, was
designed to prepare Him for the temptation in the

LIMITATION OF CHRIST AS A PROPHET. 117

wilderness and for His public ministry. That
ministry was not formally entered upon until He
was Himself endued with power from on high.

This doctrine of dependence upon the presence
and power of the Holy Ghost even in the case of
Christ Himself is presented very prominently in the
book of the Revelation. The title of the book is
itself suggestive. It is entitled, " The Revelation
of Jesus Christ which God gave unto Him, to show
unto His servants things which must shortly come
to pass" (Rev. i. i). There is here official sub
ordination, coupled with authoritative communication
and commission. What our Lord is commissioned
to communicate He receives from God the Father,
and the dcfinitencss of the revelation He is to
make is symbolised by the term book (chap. v. i).
This latter term occurs more than once, and is
manifestly used in a symbolical sense, and must be
regarded as teaching that, as the Prophet ordained
and commissioned to reveal the will of God to men,
our Lord received a strictly defined system of truth.
As the Son of God, whose native dwelling place is
the bosom of the Father, He knew all that the
Father knows, as He does all that the Father doeth,
but the knowledge He came to communicate was
not omniscience. He came to reveal the Divine
purpose of mercy, to proclaim the way of salvation
to be opened up by His o\vn obedience and death.
To the crreat themes embraced within this scheme

nS SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

of grace were His prophetic functions limited. He
was simply the mediatorial Agent appointed to
make known a definite purpose of grace. This the
book of the Revelation clearly establishes ; but this
is not all it teaches in relation to this mysterious
mission of our Lord. It teaches also that in com
municating this definitely determined revelation,
our Saviour was under the fullest possible inspira
tion of the Holy Ghost. This comes out very
clearly in connection with the seven letters He
commissions John to write to the seven churches
in Asia. Although He is personally present with
the aged Apostle, and is, in His own person, holding
converse with him, He, nevertheless, ascribes what
is recorded in the letters to the Holy Ghost. The
ever- recurring admonition with which each letter
closes is : " He that hath an ear, let him hear what
the Spirit saith unto the churches."

Now surely if ever there were material out of
which to frame an a fortiori argument, it is furnished
in these unquestionable representations of the Sacred
Scriptures respecting the dependence of the Qeaz/-
Opconos, as the Prophet of the Church, upon the
special endowment of the Holy Ghost. If these
passages warrant, as they unquestionably do, the
conclusion that the eternal Logos, in His mediatorial
prophetic capacity, was restricted, in His communi
cations to the sons of men, to a predetermined
Revelation confided to Him by the Father, restricted

INFERENCE EROM THE UXCTIO.V OF CHRIST. 119

to the words which the Father commanded Him
to speak, so that He could say, as He did, that
the words He had given to His disciples were words
which the Father had given Him; and if, besides,
these Scriptures teach, as they undoubtedly do,
that the Hoi}- Spirit was given Him to qualify Him
for the delivery of the message of mercy which He
brought from heaven to earth, and sustained towards
Him relations of such intimacy in the communica
tion that what He spoke, or placed on record, was
really and truly the sayings of the Spirit Himself;
if, let it be repeated again, these things be taught
in the passages above cited, then surely it is most
warrantable to conclude, with all the force and triumph
of an a fortiori argument, thai; much more would weak,
erring, fallible men, who formed the last links in the
revealing medium, be placed under limitation as to
the subject matter of their communications, and
endued with such a measure of the Holy Ghost as
would determine them in the choice of language
which would infallibly convey the messages they
were commissioned to communicate. Surely it
were most unreasonable to hold that He who knows
the Father even as the Father knoweth Him, should
be placed under such official limitations and, at the
same time, to hold that the Prophets, Apostles, and
Evangelists were left untrammelled by any restrictions
whatever save what were imposed by honesty and
fidelity ; or to hold that while the Son of God, who

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

possesses all Divine attributes, needed, as the Prophet
of the Church, in communicating- to His people the
will of God for their salvation, the unction of the
Holy Ghost — an unction which, as has been shown,
identified the Spirit with the utterance and record
of the Revelation — and yet to hold that Peter, or
James, or John, or Paul, was left free to make
selections from what he had seen and heard, and
utter them or record them in such form and in such
terms as his own unaided genius might suggest !
The facts and teaching of the Sacred Scriptures,
reverence for the Divine Saviour and the anointing
of the Holy Ghost wherewith He was qualified for
His prophetic office, and regard for the salvation of
men whose eternal interests are involved in the
accuracy of the sacred record, forbid such limitation
in the one case and such licence in the other.

APOSTOLIC ESTIMATE OF THE INSPIRING AGENCY.

The conclusion thus reached is confirmed by the
views which the sacred writers themselves held in
regard to the extent of the spiritual influence under
which they wrote, and by which they were moved to
write. There occurs in the first epistle of Paul to
the Corinthians (chap, ii.) a remarkable testimony on
this point. The Apostle is vindicating his method
of preaching — a method which he had learned was
not acceptable to some of the Corinthians, inasmuch
as he did not adorn his discourses with philosophy

ARGUMENT FROM i CORINTHIANS II.

and rhetoric. As to the former of these alleged
defects, he tells them that the subject matter of
his preaching was not, as human philosophy, a thing
of man's discovery, or the offspring of human specu
lation. The things he was commissioned to preach
were things which eye hath not seen nor ear heard,
things which have not entered into the heart of man,
things which none of the princes of this world knew,
things which he designates as the wisdom of God in
a mystery, and which were made known to himself
by revelation. Regarding the second point, he
informs the Church at Corinth that these Heaven-
revealed mysteries were to be communicated to
others through a Heaven-revealed medium. He gives
them to understand that he was not at liberty to act
the rhetorician in delivering these heavenly truths
to men. The Spirit by whose revealing agency
these truths were given to him was bestowed upon
him, not simply to communicate to himself a know
ledge of them for his own sake or his own personal
salvation, but, in addition to all this, to secure the
infallible communication of them to others. Hence
human rhetoric was out of the question as the
arbiter of the style of his discourses. He spoke
these things, not in the words which man's wisdom
teacheth, but in the words which the Holy Ghost
teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual,
i.e. giving expression to the things of the Spirit in
the words of the Spirit. Emphasising these two

122 SCRIPTURE DUCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

points of his vindication, he adds, as a reason for
both, that the natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto
him, and affirms it as a truth that he cannot know
them for lack of a discernment which the Spirit alone
can impart. Such statements were, doubtless, very
humbling to the Corinthians, as they are to men in
all ages, who would reduce the matter of Revela
tion to the limitations of human Reason, and bring
the utterance and the record of it under the rules
and appliances of human literature. The bands of
all such human imposed restrictions burst before the
revealing, inspiring energy of the Holy Ghost, as did
the green withes, wherewith Delilah thought she had
bound him, from the limbs of Samson. The Apostle
teaches, in this his vindication, that the mysteries
which were hid in God were such as man could not
discover by any powers he possesses ; that these
hidden mysteries could be brought forth from their
concealment in the mind and counsel of the
unsearchable Jehovah by none save the Spirit of
God ; that as the Spirit alone could reveal them to
the sacred writers or preachers, none save the same I
Spirit could frame an infallible vehicle for the com- /
munication of them to others ; and in confirmation \
of all this the Apostle winds up with an appeal to ,
the known and clearly established doctrine of the
spiritual blindness and inability of men in their
natural estate. It is only by ignoring these express

TRANSMISSION AS IMPORTANT AS REVELATION. 123

testimonies of an inspired apostle that men can be led
to call in question the doctrine of an inspiring agency
of the Holy Spirit which extended to the form, and
determined the language, of the sacred record.

Nor can it be said that the foregoing is an excep
tional utterance of an exceptional claim. The pas
sage itself is sufficient proof of this, for the claim
advanced is a claim in regard to the entire ministry
of the Apostle, embracing all the subject matter of
his preaching and the language of his discourses
But, besides, all that he claims here, he claims else
where. In correcting the abuses connected with the
observance of the Lord's Supper, he informs these
same Corinthians (i Cor. xi. 23) that what he had
delivered unto them he had himself received of the
Lord Jesus. He advances a like claim for the
entire Gospel which he preached to the Galatians.
" I certify unto you that the Gospel which was
preached of me is not after man. For I neither
received it of man, neither was I taught it but by
the Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. i. 11, 12).
These passages, it is true, have special reference to
the revelation of the Gospel to the mind of the
Apostle himself, but they nevertheless constitute,
indirectly, proofs of the doctrine of Inspiration
established already, for it is certainly most un
reasonable to hold that a supernatural agency would
be employed to communicate the Gospel mysteries
to Paul, and that, too, in his Apostolic capacity, and,

124 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

at the same time, to hold that such agency would
be withheld when he was actually engaged in the
execution of the task for which he was brought
under the revealing agency of the Holy Ghost.

Nor can it be said that such claims are peculiar
to one Apostle, or to one ambassador. The Apostle
Peter takes the same ground, and advances the
same claim on behalf of all the speakers on the day
of Pentecost (Acts ii. 33). He refers what the
people saw and heard on that day to the agency of
the Holy Ghost as the gift of the Father and the
Son. " Therefore being by the right hand of God
exalted, and having received of the Father the
promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this
which ye now sec and hear." In Acts iv. 8-12, this
same Apostle, we are told, " filled with the Holy
Ghost," preached before the Jewish council. Under
a like plenary power of the Holy Ghost did the
first Christian martyr deliver his memorable speech,
which led to his martyrdom. The synod of Jeru
salem (Acts xv.) lay claim to a like guidance of the
Holy Ghost in their letter to the churches of Antioch,
Syria, and Cilicia. " It seemed good to the Holy
Ghost and to us."

The same claim is manifestly implied in those
passages in which revelations made to the Prophets
and Apostles of the New Testament are placed on
a footing of equality with those made to the Prophets
under the Old Testament. In his epistle to the

A POS TLES EQUAL TO OLD TES TA ME NT PR OPHE TS. 1 2 5

Ephcsians (chap, iii.) the Apostle Paul refers to his
writings in proof of his knowledge of the mystery
of Christ, and adds that this mystery, in one of its
aspects, " was not made known to the sons of men
in other ages as it is now revealed to His holy
apostles and prophets by the Spirit," thus mani
festly claiming for himself and his brethren coequal
authority with the entire array of the Old Testament
Prophets.

In accordance with this estimate, Paul instructs
the Colossians (chap. iv. 1 6) to cause that the
epistle which he had sent them should, after they
had read it, be read also in the Church of the Laodi-
ccans, and enjoins it upon them that they likewise
read the epistle from Laodicea. It is difficult to
avoid the inference that the Apostle, who gave such
instructions to Christians at Colossc and Laodicea
respecting the public reading of his own writings,
must have regarded them as entitled to take rank
with the sacred writings of the Old Testament, and
must have considered himself entitled to take rank
beside the Old Testament Prophets, for nothing was
read in the assemblies of the people of God save the
word of God. The Colossians and Laodiccans could
put no other interpretation upon such instructions,
and would never have complied with such injunc
tions had they not regarded the writings of Paul as
of equal authority with those of Moses and the
Prophets.

126 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

Nor was Paul's estimate of his o\vn writings
peculiar to himself. The testimony of Peter shows
that such was the common estimate in which they
were held by the churches, and by Peter himself.
Peter, in his second epistle (chap. iii. 15, I 6), speaks
of Paul's epistles as well known, and quotes them as
of equal authority with the other Scriptures, and
teaches, incidentally, that the wresting of them or
employment of them for the inculcation of false
doctrine is a sin which may bring upon those who
commit it destruction. This same Apostle, who
thus highly exalts the Apostle Paul (by whom lie
had at one time been withstood to the face), has no
hesitation in claiming for himself and the other
Apostles coequal authority. In the second verse of
this same chapter, he assigns as the reason of his
writing this second epistle his desire to keep them
" mindful of the words which were spoken before by
the holy Prophets, and of the commandment of us
the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour." As the Pro
phets referred to were unquestionably the Prophets
of the Old Testament, this passage advances for
the words of the Apostles of the New Testament a
claim to the reverence and sacredness with which
those addressed were accustomed to regard the
words of those holy men who under the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit penned the Old Testament Scrip
tures. This view of the Apostle's language is con
firmed, and great force added to the argument, by

INFERENCE FROM AUTHORITY CLAIMED. 127

the fact that he speaks of the " commandment "
(eVroXr^) of the Apostles. The use of such a term
in any connection in which the Church is called to
obedience implies an authority which attaches to no
word of man and which can be claimed for no
human authority in the Church of Christ, whether
ecclesiastical or civil ; but in the connection in
which it here occurs it is peculiarly significant, for
while he speaks of the writings of the Old Testament
prophets simply under the designation of words
(fnjp.aTa , he applies to the utterances and writings
of the Apostles the term commandment (eVroXry),
which is one of the strongest terms that could be
employed to convey the idea of authority.

That the authority which, in the estimate of the
Apostles, attached to their deliverances was above
all that could be claimed for any doctrine or
commandment of man, is placed beyond doubt by
the penalties attached to any attempt at disobedience
or opposition. To gainsay or reject their teaching
was to incur an anathema (Gal. i. 8). To add to
the words of the Apostle John, as given in the book
of the Revelation, is to incur the infliction of the
plagues that are written therein ; and to take away
from those words is to risk erasure from the book of
life and forfeit heritage in the holy city (Kcv.
xxii. 19). To these writings all New Testament
Prophets were to be subject, and by them their
prophecies were to be tested. "If any man think

128 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

himself to be a Prophet, or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you
are the commandments of the Lord" (i Cor. xiv.
37). Such language, coming from men professing
to act under a Divine commission, who are to be
presumed to be aware of the natural import of their
own words and of the meaning which would be
attached to them by those whom they addressed, is
certainly unjustifiable on any other assumption
than that of an inspiration which rendered their
words what they claim to be, the very word of God.

Now there is one consideration which renders
the argument from the forth-putting of these claims
by the sacred writers of the New Testament,
absolutely conclusive, viz. the fact that the claims
advanced were recognised and endorsed by God
Himself. All these high claims were sustained
and vindicated by signs, and wonders, and divers
miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost. These
miraculous manifestations, vouchsafed in attestation
of the Divine approval of the Apostles and their
mission, must be regarded as nothing less than an
authentication of their claims ; and as these claims
embraced the claim of an inspiration which extended
to the language in which they delivered their
messages to men, the conclusion is inevitable that
the doctrine in question has the seal and sanction of
God Himself.

This argument from miracles, however, is not to

A/1RACLES NEC ATI FED /?)' FALSE DOCTRINE. 129

be taken in isolation, as in and of itself conclusive in
regard to the Divine authentication of the message, or
the Divine authorisation of the professed messenger.
The Scriptures put us upon our guard on this point,
and admonish us that we should take cognisance of
the character of the doctrine taught by the miracle-
worker, as well as of the wonders he may work.
Moses warns Israel against hasty inferences of a
Divine commission, even from the fulfilment of
dreams, or prophecies, accompanied by signs or
wonders. The rule laid down was to test the com
mission of such prophet or dreamer of dreams by
the existing Revelation. If he wrought wonders to
induce them to go after other gods which they had
not known, despite the wonder or the sign or the
fulfilment, instead of giving heed to him, they were
to put him to death (Deut. xiii. 15). To the
same intent is the language in which the Apostle
Paul warns the Galatians against false teachers who
were trying to fascinate and withdraw them from
the Gospel he had preached unto them. His
language is most emphatic and solemn. " Though
we or an angel from heaven preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached
unto you, let him be accursed," etc. (Gal. i. 8). Of
course the implication in such language is, that no
miracle is to be regarded as, of itself, establishing the
claims of a professed ambassador, even though he
bore Apostolic or angelic credentials, whose doctrine

130 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

was not in accordance with the analogy of the faith.
13oth these tests of commission were recognised by
Christ and His apostles, and to both our Saviour
and His ambassadors make appeal. Our Lord
makes appeal to the former when He says : " If I
had not done among them the works which none
other man did, they had not had sin " (John xv. 24) ;
and He recognises the legitimacy of the latter on
all occasions on which He refers to Moses and the
Prophets in proof of His mission and doctrine. In
like manner the Apostles appear both as miracle-
workers and as Old Testament exegetes, giving, as
credentials of their Divine mission, signs and
wonders, and demonstrating from Moses and the
Prophets the harmony of their doctrines with what
God had spoken at sundry times and in divers
manners unto the fathers by the Prophets. They
testified none other things than what Moses and the
Prophets wrote, and they sustained their claims,
as witnesses and ambassadors, by unquestionable
tokens of the Divine presence and approval.

INSPIRATION OF MARK AND LUKE.

As the foregoing arguments apply only to the
writings of the Apostles, and do not, therefore,
establish the inspiration of the writings of Mark and
Luke, it is necessary to indicate the special line of
argument by which the claims of the writings of

INSPIRATION OF MARK AND LUKE PROVED. 131

these evangelists to a place in the inspired record,
may be vindicated. These arguments are as
follows: i. The writings in question, viz. the
Gospel by Mark, the Gospel by Luke, and the Acts
ol the Apostles, ascribed to the latter, furnish most
satisfactory internal evidence that their authors wrote
under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The
character of the facts selected for record, the
character of the doctrines represented as coming
irom Christ, and the unquestionable harmony of
both facts and doctrine with the historical facts and
doctrinal statements recorded by the other New
Testament writers, satisfy all the demands and
fulfil all the conditions of the most rigid rules of
internal evidence.

2. The rank of the writers themselves. Both
Mark and Luke were companions of the Apostles,
and engaged in the work of the ministry. This
argument is by some presented in a form which
reduces these evangelists to the rank of Apostolic
secretaries, or amanuenses, who merely recorded what
they were instructed by their superiors to record,
or, without such instruction, of their own motion
made record of the Gospel discourses which they had
heard, or of the historic incidents of which they were
witnesses. According to this representation the
Gospel written down by Mark may be regarded as
the Gospel by Peter, and the Gospel which goes by
the name of Luke should be designated the Gospel

132 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

by Paul. Others, again, represent the Gospel by
Mark as an abridgment of the Gospel by Matthew.
This is by no means a satisfactory view of the case.
Had these writers sustained such relations to their
respective writings as this theory assumes, there can
be no reason assigned for the fact that these
writings should bear their names, and should have
been ascribed to them before the death of the
Apostles and by the whole Church ever since.
This consideration is greatly enforced by the fact
that while the Apostle Paul employed an amanu
ensis in the writing of his epistles, his epistles
were issued in his own name, and have never been
ascribed to the mere penman he employed.

And as this theory of the authorship of these
writings is unsatisfactory, so is it unnecessary.
These Apostolic companions were something more
than Apostolic secretaries. There is the most
satisfactory proof that they occupied the rank of
Prophets. The writer of the Acts of the Apostles
associates himself with the Apostle Paul (chap. xvi.
13, 14), not as a secretary, but as a preacher,
informing his readers that he took part as a speaker
in the preaching of the Gospel to Lydia and others
at Philippi. The language he employs in the record
of that incident, places his prophetic rank beyond
question. " On the Sabbath we went out of the
city by a riverside, where prayer was wont to be
made ; and we sat down and spake unto the

PROPHETIC RANK OP J/.-JA'A' AND LUKE. 133

women which resorted thither. And a certain
woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of
Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us, whose heart
the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things
which were spoken of Paul." In this narration the
writer has a prominence which bespeaks for him the
status of a Prophet and puts him out of the category
of a mere secretary, or a mere recorder of occurrences
which happened to come under his notice, or to which
his attention was called by his superior. By his use
of the pronouns "we" and "us," he advances a claim
to the authorship of the narrative which forbids the
ascription of it to any other, and, at the same time,
represents himself as an Apostolic associate in a
work requiring as one of its conditions that the
agent should be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Now the conclusions thus reached in regard to
the status of Luke, are confirmed elsewhere as true
respecting both Luke and Mark. At the close of
the epistle to Philemon, the Apostle Paul sends
salutations from several of his brethren, among whom
he mentions Mark and Luke as his fellow-workers
(crvvepyoi. This same apostle makes a similar
statement in regard to Mark (2 Tim. iv. i i),
where he instructs Timothy to bring Mark with him,
because he was profitable to him for the ministry.
In the same connection he mentions Luke as the
only one who was with him, at a time when he
evidently felt the need of human sympathy, as he

134 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

had been forsaken by Dcmas and regarded the time
of his martyrdom as close at hand.

It is unnecessary to refer to other instances of the
mention of these two servants of the Lord Jesus.
The passages already adduced are sufficient to prove
that they were associated in the work of the minis
try with the Apostle Paul, at a period in the history
of the Church when supernatural endowments were
both necessary and common. At that stage, when
the New Testament Revelation was not complete
or committed, as we have it, to writing, it was
necessary to make provision for the edification of
the churches founded by apostolic preaching, and
the provision made, as the first epistle to the
Corinthians especially shows, was to endow the
common membership of the churches with an
abundant baptism of the Holy Ghost, communicating
to them, by Revelation, portions of Gospel truth, and
qualifying them for the communication of these
truths to others. (See I Cor. xii., xiii., and xiv.) If
such endowments were common in the churches in
the Apostolic period, surely it is not presumptuous to
infer that men who are described by an Apostle as
fellow-labourers or co-workers, or as helpful to him
for the ministry, \vould be partakers of them. And
if they needed these supernatural gifts to qualify
them for delivering, orally, discourses which would
pass away with the occasion of their utterance, much
more did they need them to fit them for placing on

//•' INSPJKED PREACHERS MUCH MORE WRITERS. 135

permanent record the Gospel narratives which bear
their names, which were to serve as fountains of
saving knowledge in all ages of the Church's history,
or, as in the case of the Acts of the Apostles, to
sketch the history of the founding of the Christian
Church so as to furnish instruction throughout all
time in regard to those principles which lie at the
foundation of church organisation and missionary
enterprise. These conclusions are not reached
through constrained inference from inadequate pre
mises. They are in harmony with the facts pre
sented in the writings in question, which bespeak
their Divine original ; in harmony with the method
of the Divine administration at the time of their
composition ; in harmony with Apostolic testimony
regarding the writers themselves, and in harmony
with the testimony of the Church from time imme
morial, as they are in keeping with the instinctive
estimate of God's people as they study their precious
contents.

LECTURE VI.

INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT.

NEXT in order comes the question of Inspiration
as it relates to the Scriptures of the Old Testa
ment. If the arguments already advanced in regard
to the inspiration of the New Testament be valid, the
way should now be well opened for the establish
ment of the inspiration of the Old, and our task
comparatively easy.

Taking advantage, then, of the foregoing argu
ments, it is claimed that the arguments advanced
in establishing the inspiration of the New Testament
have, by implication, and, indeed, by no very remote
consequence, established the inspiration of the Old
Testament. In fact, if the inspiration of the New
be acknowledged, the inspiration of the Old cannot
possibly be denied. If we recognise the infallible
authority of Him who is the Truth, as well as the
Way and the Life, the faithful and true Witness, who
has the seven spirits of God, upon whom the Holy
Ghost descended in person and took up with Him
His permanent abode to qualify Him for the func-

ARGUMENT FROM MATT. T. 17, 18. 137

tions of His prophetic office, and if, in addition, \vc
recognise what has been already abundantly proved,
viz. the full, plenary inspiration of the Apostles and
Evangelists of the new dispensation, we must ac
knowledge that the Old Testament Scriptures arc
inspired, not only as to substance, but also as to
form and language, for both Christ and His apostles
testify that these sacred writings arc, in both respects,
the word of God.

Tin-: TESTIMONY OF CHRIST.

i. In His Sermon on the Mount, when formally
entering upon His public ministry, He bears a testi
mony to the imperishable character of the Law and
the Prophets, which would seem to admit of no
interpretation short of an inspiration which extended
to the letter of the record. " Think not," He says,
" that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets :
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily
I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law,
till all be fulfilled " (Matt. v. 17, I 8). In Luke xvi.
i 7, He bears a similar testimony : " It is easier for
heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the Law
to fail." It is impossible to find language capable
of conveying a higher estimate of the imperishable
character of the Sacred Scripture as a written record.
The jot (or tojra, or yod} is the smallest letter
in the Hebrew alphabet, and the tittle (or horn,

138 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION,

Kepcua), is simply a stroke, or part of a stroke,
whereby letters bearing a close resemblance (as D
and 3) are distinguished from each other. It may
seem a very narrow-minded species of Biblical
criticism or exegesis which bases an argument
upon a literal interpretation of our Lord's language
in these passages ; but an example showing the
consequence of a change even of a very trivial
nature, in one of the strokes of one of the letters
of a Hebrew word, will serve as a vindication of
both the criticism and the exegesis. The verb
7?n means to praise, and the verb /?n means
to profane, and yet the only difference in the
characters by which these two widely diverse ideas
are expressed is that by which D is distinguished
from H, viz. a break, or interruption in the left
limb of the H. Let the simple change be made in
the letter H of filling up this breach, in, for example,
the sentence iT"}//!!, " Praise ye the Lord," and
the sentence would be transmuted into a most
irreverent and blasphemous command to profane
the Lord.

2. Equally express and decisive is the language
of Christ in vindication of Himself against the
charge of blasphemy preferred against Him by
the Jews (John x. 33-36). " Is it not written in
your law, I said ye arc gods ? If He called them
gods to whom the word of God came, and the
Scripture cannot be broken " (XvOrjvai), " say ye of

ARGU.ME.\T FROM JOHN X. 33 36. 139

Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the
world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the
Son of God ? " Xo\v the question here is not
whether our Saviour's argument were cogent or
pertinent. This is to be assumed if His personal
rank be admitted. The sole question is, What,
according to the language employed by Him, was
His estimate of the Old Testament Scripture? It
will be observed that He docs not single out the
passage on which He bases His argument, and
testify of it that it is unbreakable, making its in
fallibility depend upon His own authority. Stated
formally, His argument is as follows : —

Major — The Scripture cannot be broken.

Minor — I said ye arc gods, is written in your
law, which is Scripture.

Conclusion — "I said ye are gods," cannot be broken.
Such is unquestionably our Saviour's argument, and
it assumes and affirms the unbrcakableness and
infallibility of all that was recognised by the
Jews of His day as Scripture — the infallibility of
the entire Jewish Bible ; for He argues the infalli
bility of the clause on which He founds His argu
ment, from the infallibility of the record in which
it occurs. According to His infallible estimate,
it was sufficient proof of the infallibility of any
sentence, or clause of a sentence, or phrase of a
clause, to show that it constituted a portion of
what the Jews called (rj ypa^Trf) the Scripture. In

140 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

this argument our Lord ignores and, by implication,
invalidates all the distinctions of the later Rabbis,
and their followers among modern Biblical critics,
in regard to diversity of degrees of Inspiration
among different books of Scripture. Instead of
arguing, as Maimonides and his followers would
have done, the infallibility of the clause from the
fact that it is written in the Law, that is in the
Pentateuch, which these critics regard as peculiarly
and exceptionally inspired, He argues the infalli
bility of the Law itself and the clause embraced
in it, from the infallibility of the Scripture, of
which the Law was but a part. According to our
Saviour's teaching, therefore, the entire set of writings
designated Scripture by the Jews, was infallibly
inspired.

As regards Mis views touching the extent of this
inspiration this passage is equally explicit and con
clusive. His argument turns upon the fact that
the passage quoted by Him (Ps. Ixxxii. 6) con
tains the clause " I said ye are gods," and as the
force of this reference depends upon the fact that
this clause contains the word " gods," it is manifest
that His argument depends ultimately upon the fact
that the original writer (Exod. xxii. 9 and 28)
employed this term. His argument, therefore, pro
ceeds upon the declared infallibility of the entire
Scripture even to its minutest clause and its
individual terms.

2 TIM. III. 1 6, EXAMINED. 141

TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES.

i. In his second epistle to Timothy (chap. iii. 1 6)
the Apostle Paul bases the claim he advances, on
behalf of the lepa ypdp.jJLO.Ta, known to Timothy
from childhood, as being able to make wise unto
salvation, upon their inspiration, for having made
this affirmation respecting the Holy Scriptures, he
immediately adds, as a reason for it, that all Scrip
ture is given by inspiration of God, etc. It is true
that critics differ in regard to the interpretation of
this passage, some adopting the Socinian interpreta
tion, which embraces OtOTTvevaTos in the subject,
and makes CLK/JC'XI/AO? the sole predicate. Those
who take this view translate as follows : " All " (or
ever}-) " Scripture, given by inspiration of God, is
profitable," etc., instead of " All Scripture is given
by inspiration of God, and is profitable," etc. This
rendering of the passage, it is respectfully submitted,
is not in keeping with the scope of the Apostle's
argument. It would be exceedingly strange if, after
representing the Holy Scriptures as able to make
wise unto salvation, he should, in the very next
sentence, proceed, by a vague statement, to insinuate
doubts respecting some of these very writings, not
indicating what portions he took exception to, and,
therefore, leaving not only Timothy, but the entire
Church in all time, to determine what portions were,
and what portions were not, OCOTTVCVVTOS and

142 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

o>c/>e'X 1/109. As the Greek admits of the render
ing given in the Authorised Version, as well as the
rendering proposed by the critics referred to, we
are bound by that rule of exegesis which takes into
account the scope of the context to accept that
rendering and regard the passage as an Apostolic
testimony to the inspiration of all Scripture, or of
every Scripture. This testimony, as has been already
shown, when speaking of the import of the term
^eoVz/eucTTos, is simply a declaration that the
entire Old Testament, in every part thereof, was
God-breathed ; and as this declaration has reference
to the Old Testament as a writing the doctrine it
teaches is, that those Holy Scriptures, which Timothy
had known from his childhood, were God-breathed.
No other view can be entertained, for it cannot be
for a moment imagined that, after passing such high
eulogium upon the Holy Scriptures which Timothy,
and his mother, and grandmother, had held in such
veneration, the Apostle would at once proceed to
inculcate an indefinite theory of inspiration, which,
from its indefinitcness, could serve no other end
than to perplex those who would attempt to apply
it, and must, in the end, lead to sceptical views on
the whole subject of the claims of the sacred
record.

2. A like testimony is borne by this same apostle
in his epistle to the Galatians (chap. iii. 16) : "Now
to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.

I'ERDAL INSPIRATION PROVED FROM GAL. 111. 16. 143

He saith not, And to seeds, as of man}-, but as of
one, And to Thy seed, which is Christ." Here the
argument is made to turn not only on a clause or
a single word, but on the difference between the
singular and the plural of a noun. The whole force,
and validity, and warrantableness of the argument,
is based on the fact, that the writer in Genesis used
seed ^nr, and not seeds (D'VlJj. Had lie used the
latter, the Apostle would not, even where the point
under discussion was the Messianic claims of Jesus
of Nazareth, have deduced from it an argument in
the affirmative. Canon Farrar has assailed this
argument from this passage, on the assumption that
it was impossible for Paul, who was a good Hebraist
and, at the same time, a master of Hellenistic Greek,
to have argued in such a manner, inasmuch as the
plural of SHI is never used for human offspring,
but only for different kinds of grain, which, he
alleges, is also true of the Greek usage of the
plural of 0-Trtpfj.a..

On this attempt to invalidate the argument from
this classic passage in this controversy, three remarks
may be allowed : (i) That if the Apostle Paul were
the good Hebraist and the master of Hellenistic
Greek, which Canon Farrar says he was, we must
take him, and not Canon Farrar, as an authority in
regard to the usages of these two languages. This
seems to be not an unreasonable assumption, and is
fairly deduciblc from Canon Farrar's own testimony

144 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIKATION.

respecting the Apostle's acquirements in these
tongues. If, however, this be allowed, the dispute
is settled, for the Apostle proceeds upon the assump
tion that both languages admitted of this use of these
terms. (2) It may be observed, in the next place,
that it is impossible to give to the plural of o"n-epp.a,
as used by Paul in this passage, the meaning which
Canon Farrar says is the only admissible one. This
is a point very easily settled. All that is necessary to
determine it is simply to translate the passage,
giving to <j7repp.aTa the meaning of " seeds of grain."
" lie saith not, And to different kinds of grain, as of
many, but as of one, And to thy grain, which is
Christ " ! In a word, Canon Farrar wishes to deter
mine Paul's usage by his own theory of Inspiration,
instead of allowing Paul's actual use of language to
determine his views on that subject. In ascertaining
the usage of terms, we must consult writers of
acknowledged authority in the language we have
under consideration. Proceeding on this principle,
the only one recognised by scholars, or at all recon
cilable with common-sense, we must, Canon Farrar
himself being witness, accept that of the Apostle Paul.
On turning to his epistle to the Galatians, as we
have seen, we find that he uses the word in dispute
in a sense which Canon Farrar alleges is a violation
of the usage of the two languages involved in the
controversy, languages of which the good Canon has
already pronounced him a master ! If Paul was a

CANON FAKK.4K AND THE TALVCDISTS. 145

good Hebraist and a master of Hellenistic Greek, it
is impossible that he could have been guilty of such
a departure from Hebrew and Hellenistic Greek-
usage as Canon Farrar's interpretation of the
passage in question involves. (3 It is not un
worthy of note that the usage which Canon Farrar
repudiates as not Hebraic, has found a place in the
Talmud. \Vhcn a witness against one charged with
a capital offence appeared before the Sanhedrin, the
president admonished him, as the Talmudists inform
us, that if through his false witness-bearing the
accused should be put to death, the blood not only of
the accused, but the bloods of all his seeds which,
had he lived, should have sprung from him, would be
required at his hands. The instance given in con
firmation by the Talmudists is worthy of special
remark, because of its resemblance to the Apostle's
form of argument. The case cited is that of Cain,
where God says : " The voice of thy brother's blood
hath cried to Me from the ground." The comment
on these words is: " He saith not ^'HS C? plpi
the voice of thy brother's blood t but f HN* W Sip.
the voice of thy brother's bloods" — teaching that Cain
was guilty, not simply of the murder of his brother
Abel, but ini>7"lT of his seeds which should have-
sprung from him, had he not been slain by the hand
of his murderer. Of course, it may be urged in
reply that the Talmudists are not to be taken as
authorities where a question of Hebrew usage is to

146 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

be decided ; but in this case we have, not simply
the Talmudists, but a Hebraist of acknowledged
authority in his own mother tongue, certifying, by his
own practice, to a Hebrew usage in which he has
been sustained by rabbinical testimony. Where
we have such evidence on the one side and nothing
on the other, save two assumptions, viz. that the
Hebrew language does not recognise such usage,
and that so good a Hebraist as the Apostle Paul
could not have been guilty of assuming the exist
ence of such usage — assumptions directly contra
dicted by the fact that the Apostle testifies to the
usage denied, and the additional fact that the
passage cannot be read at all if the suggested usage
be accepted — where we have these facts to appeal
to, we need have little hesitation in rejecting Canon
Farrar's criticism of the argument deduced from this
classic passage in support of the doctrine of Verbal
Inspiration.

3. Nor was Paul singular in his estimate of the
Old Testament Scriptures as the very word of God
given by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The
Apostle Peter is equally emphatic in testifying to
their Divine origin and character. In his first epistle
(chap. i. 10-12) he leaves no room for doubt on
this subject. Speaking, as the Apostles were
accustomed to do, of the relation of the New
Testament Revelation to that of the Old, he says :
" Of which salvation the Prophets have inquired and

ARGUMENT FROM I PETER i. 10-12. 147

searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that
should come unto you, searching what, or what
manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in
them did signify when it testified beforehand the
sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow,
unto whom it was revealed that not unto themselves,
but unto us, they did minister the things which are
now reported unto you by them that have preached
the Gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down
from heaven, which things the angels desire to
look into" (7ra/3a/o'i//cu). The points embraced in
this testimony, in so far as it bears upon the question
under discussion, arc — ^i) That the Revelation
recorded in the Old Testament was made by the
same Spirit who inspired the Apostles under the
New ; that Christ by His Spirit is the Author of
both revelations. (2) That the Old Testament is not
as clear as the New ; and that that ancient Revela
tion was so obscure that the Prophets themselves,
through whom it was communicated, did not fully
understand it, even though they searched and in
quired diligently. (3) That the Author of it declined
to inform them full}', in response to their solicitation,
in regard to the mysteries they were commissioned to
put on record for New Testament times. (4) That
in reporting these Old Testament mysteries to men
under the new dispensation, the Apostles required a
special unction of the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven. (5) That these mysteries are so deep that

148 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

they arc sufficient not only to engage, but to tax to
their utmost, the minds of angels.

These points are plainly embraced in this remark
able passage ; and they arc sufficient to prove that,
in the estimate of this Apostle, the Old Testament
Revelation was above the mind of man to conceive,
or fully to understand, or adequately and infallibly
to express. According to this testimony, all that
the Prophets undertook, or were commissioned, to
communicate, respecting this salvation, they received
through the Revelation of the Spirit of Christ which
was in them, and what they were placing on record
they did not full}' understand and were not given to
know. So difficult were their themes that even
when "the fulness of times" had come, the men who
had companied with Him, who is the subject matter
of all these prophetic forecasts, apart from the
special baptism of the Holy Ghost, were not quali
fied to preach them to others, and, as if to give
special emphasis to his estimate of the magnitude of
these mysteries, the Apostle appeals to the fact that
they are sufficient to engross and tax the minds of
angels.

The bearing of all this upon the question of the
extent of the inspiration of the Old Testament
writers is obvious. If such were the difficulties
under which these writers attempted to transmit to
New Testament times the mysteries revealed to
them, it must be manifest that they required an

ARGUMENT FROM TASK ASSIGNED THE TROPHE'l'S. 149

inspiration that determined the form and the
language of the record. This will be seen at once
if we take, as an example, the prophecy recorded
Isaiah liii. Mere the task assigned the prophet was
to give a sketch of the person and work of the
Messiah, more than seven hundred years before His
advent. He is to sketch His appearance, to speak
of the. estimate in which He would be held by
Isradr he treatment He would receive at their
hands, the nature and design of His sufferings and
the hand the Father would have in the infliction of
them, and the reward the august Sufferer should
receive when His work would be accomplished.
This task Isaiah executed, as we all know, in such a
way that the chapter in which the record of it is
found reads as a piece of New Testament history.
How, it maybe asked, could Isaiah have written that
fifty-third chapter of his prophecies if he had (were
that possible apart from language; received simply
the substance of the communication ? If we arc to
accept the testimony of Peter, Isaiah inquired and
searched diligently what, or what manner of time,
the Spirit of Christ which was in him did " signify
when it testified of these sufferings of the Messiah
and the glory that should follow," and was informed
that the knowledge he sought was held in reserve
for others — for those to whom he was commissioned
to transmit these wondrous mysteries. Under such
circumstances, writing under all the disadvantages

ISO SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

of a felt imperfect knowledge of the themes he
was treating, the prophet must have failed had the
inspiring Spirit not taken charge of the efflux as
well as of the influx of the Revelation. The
opposite theory of an inspiration as to substance, but
not as to form, would involve a task for the prophet
as difficult as would be the task of an artist who
was called upon to execute a statue portraying the
personal appearance of a man whom he had never
seen, and from whom all knowledge of his visage
and bearing was of set purpose withheld, and
whose sole provision for the work was a block of
marble, the substance of the future figure. It is not
too much to say that under such circumstances the
statue would fail of execution, nor is it too much to
claim that under like prophetic provision Isaiah had
never penned his immortal Messianic portraiture.

4. In his second epistle (chap. i. 16-21) this
same apostle bears one of the strongest testimonies
to the complete and all-pervading inspiration of the
Old Testament Scriptures to be found within the
compass of the New Testament Revelation. There
is not room for more than an enumeration of the
points it embraces. These are as follow : (i) That
the testimony borne by the Apostle and his brethren
to the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
was the testimony of eyewitnesses of His majesty
when His glory was revealed in His transfiguration
and attested by a voice from the excellent glory. (2)

ARGUMENT FROM 2 rETER i. 16-21.

That the word of the Old Testament record was more
sure (fit/BaioTtpov) even than that audible utterance
which proceeded from the excellent glory of the
manifested presence of God. (3) That the reason of
this greater surety was to be found in the fact that
no prophecy of the Scripture (the written record)
was of private interpretation or of the prophet's
reading of his own subjective estates, but, on the
contrary, was the offspring of the Holy Ghost
working in the prophet, moving, bearing him along
as a ship is borne along (^epo/xe^o?), and thus
determining him to speak, and determining his speech.
(4) That this agency reached not simply to the oral
utterances of the Prophets, but extended to the word
of prophecy placed by them on record, for the
Apostle's testimony is borne to the surety of the
prophecy of Scripture, i.e. to the prophecy as a
written record.

There can, therefore, be no doubt respecting the
estimate of the Old Testament Scriptures entertained
by Christ and His Apostles. It is manifest from
their references to them, of which the foregoing are
but specimens, that they looked upon them as the
very word of God. They always appeal to it as
the ultimate arbiter. Our Saviour, as well as His
Apostles, cites Moses, and the Prophets, and the
Psalms, as witnesses to His Mcssiahship. lie up
braids His disciples for their foolishness and slow
ness of heart in not believing all that the Prophets

152 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

had spoken, and then " beginning at Moses and all
the Prophets, He expounded unto them in all the
Scriptures" (the written word) " the things concerning
Himself" (Luke xxiv. 27). It is to the written
record He makes His appeal. "All things must be
fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses,
and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning
Me " (Luke xxiv. 44, 45) ; and then, for the purpose
of enhancing our estimate of these Scriptures, it is
added : " Then opened He their understanding, that
they might understand the Scriptures" — a statement
which certainly, if duly weighed, proves that those
same Scriptures required the special agency of the
Holy Ghost to enable the sacred writers to place
them on record, for if apart from supernatural
agency men cannot understand them when written,
surely without such agency men could not have
been able to write them. It must be held as an
unquestionable canon that what men cannot under
stand, men cannot write. Indeed, we have here
again the premises of an a fortiori, for if man cannot
understand what is written, much more could he not
have written it. Such is Christ's estimate of the
writings of Moses and the Prophets, and of the
evidence of their Divine origin, that He places their
testimony above the testimony of one risen from
the dead. "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets,
neither will they be persuaded though one rose from
the dead" (Luke xvi. 31). The very manner of

ARGUMENT FROM MANNER OF REFERENCE TOSS. 153

His reference to the Old Testament Scriptures is
inconsistent with any other theory than that of an
inspiration which extended to the words. In quot
ing Psalm ex. in proof of His own rank, He represents
David in it as speaking by the Holy Ghost, and
bases 1 1 is argument from it upon the fact, that
David had employed the term, " my Lord," in
speaking of the Messiah.

After the same manner do the Apostles quote
the Old Testament. In describing the closing scene,
they represent the solemn incidents as fulfilling the
Scripture to the very letter. Thus the Saviour's
cry, l< I thirst," and the incident which followed are
spoken of as fulfilling the Scripture (compare John
xix. 28, 29, 30, with Psalm Ixix. 21). The action
of the soldiers in refraining from breaking His legs,
while they had broken the legs of those who were
crucified witli Him, is represented as fulfilling that
Scripture (Exod. xii. 46): "Not a bone of Him
shall be broken." In like manner the parting of
His garments, the casting of lots upon His vesture,
His betrayal by Judas, His association with the
thieves in His death, and the exceeding bitter cry
" Eli, Kli, lama sabacthani," are all represented by
the New Testament writers as designed fulfilments
of the Old Testament Scriptures.

In a word, the Old Testament is so quoted as
to leave no doubt that our Saviour and His apostles
regarded it as the very word of God, ever}' jot and

154 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF. INSPIRATION.

tittle of which must be fulfilled. With them it was
all one to use the expression " The Scripture saith,"
or " Moses saith," or " David saith," or " Isaiah saith,"
as to say: " The Holy Ghost saith" or " The Lord
saith." What impression can such language produce
save what it has produced on the minds of both
Jews and Gentiles, with the exception of those who
have given heed to a proud, self-sufficient criticism
which substitutes its own canons and conclusions
for the testimony of the Scriptures themselves
respecting the relation of the sacred writers to
the inspiring Spirit ?

If we put all these facts together, we have an
argument for the Plenary, Verbal Inspiration of the
Old Testament, which is fitted, so far as moral
evidence can be, to produce conviction where the
mind has not been warped by Rationalistic or quasi-
Rationalistic theories. The character of the men,
the character of the doctrines they inculcate, the
claims they put forth as the accredited mouthpiece
of the Holy Spirit, the harmony of their doctrinal
teachings as parts of one system, although they
were born in different ages and trained under vast
diversities of circumstances, the full and unqualified
recognition of their highest claims by Christ and
His Apostles, who ever treat their writings as sacred,
and pronounce their words to be the very words
of the Holy Ghost — if these facts, which are abso
lutely unquestionable, do not prove that the Old

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IXl'OLl'ED. 155

Testament Scriptures have been given, not only as
to substance, but as to form and language, then we
may despair of proving any of the doctrines of the
analogy of the faith by adducing in support of
them the testimony of the Scriptures themselves.
There is only one way of meeting the argument
based on these facts, and that is to prove that
Christ Himself was not what He claimed to be,
and that His Apostles were not competent judges
or trustworthy witnesses. As there can be no
reasonable doubt regarding the estimate in which
the Messiah and His ambassadors held the writings
of Moses and the Prophets, the only ground on
which an opponent can take his stand is the anti-
Christian ground, that Jesus of Nazareth was not
the promised Messiah, and that His Apostles arc not
competent authorities in the settlement of critical
questions.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF A PLENARY,
VERHAE INSPIRATION.

Having established from the testimony of Christ
and His Apostles the Scripture doctrine of Inspira
tion, we are now in a position to estimate aright
and to answer objections.

i. The first objection is certainly a very grave
one. It is simply a protest against any theory or
doctrine at all in regard either to the nature or the
extent of Inspiration. This very common objection

156 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE 01< INSPIRATION.

is thus stated by Dr. Chartcris in his very valuable
work on " The New Testament Scriptures — their
Claims, History, and Authority." After showing
very satisfactorily that the Scriptures themselves
claim the attributes of " truth, unity, and authority,"
Dr. Chartcris adds (Lcct. ii. p. 35), " That while the
Scriptures claim to be t/ie word of God, given
by inspiration of His Spirit, they do not enable
us to ascertain t/ie nature or the extent of In
spiration'' As the author puts this statement in
italics, we must regard it as expressing his decided
conviction, and as embodying, in his estimation, an
important critical conclusion. In support of this
position Dr. Chartcris gives us a criticism on one of
the passages usually cited in proof of the doctrine
of Plenary, Verbal Inspiration (2 Tim. iii. 16), the
result of which is that as the meaning of the passage
" centres in the Greek adjective translated ' given by
inspiration of God' or ' inspired of God,' " and as the
meaning of that word is not explained either in
the passage itself or elsewhere in Scripture, as he
thinks, it does not furnish a basis for a theory of
inspiration.

With all respect to this excellent author, and with
the most cordial approval and high estimate of the
work referred to, neither the position he lays down,
nor the reasons he advances in its support, can be
accepted. It does not follow because a word is not,
immediately on its use, defined by the writer who

RULE DETERMINING THE ME AX IXC, OI- /HVv'Av 157

uses it, that its meaning is cither obscure or un
certain. The meaning of a \vord is to be learned
from its root signification and from its history.
Proceeding upon this canon of interpretation, \ve need
have no hesitation in forming an opinion regarding
the meaning of this Greek adjective (^eoV^eucrro?),
on which the doctrine of this classic passage depends,
and on whose import our esteemed author is afraid
to give any definite judgment. ^eoVz/eucrro?, judged
by its etymology, beyond all question means God-
breathed, or Divinely inspired, and when applied to
a record, as it is here, can have no other meaning
than this : that the ypar/>r) OeonvevcrTOS is, as a
ypa(f)TJ, the offspring of the Divine operation ex
pressed by this mystic term. Such is the conclusion
to which the etymology points ; and this conclusion
is sustained and confirmed by the scope of the
Apostle's testimony to the claims of the Holy
Scriptures of which he is speaking, and by the use
and wont of other writers. There can be no doubt
that such was the idea attached to this word and its
equivalents as used by ancient writers, nor can there
be any reason given for attaching to it any other
meaning when used by an Apostle in an epistle
written to one accustomed to speak Greek, as
Timothy was. If we do not hold by this principle
in the exegesis of the Sacred Scriptures, we shall
drift into cxcgctical Agnosticism, and must hesitate
to speak dogmatically respecting the meaning of

158 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

terms in which arc enshrined the central truths of
Christianity, such as priest, sacrifice, justi6cation, etc.
There is no more ground for taking up the position
the author has taken in regard to Inspiration than
there is for taking up the same position in regard
to justification, or regeneration, or priesthood, or
atonement. If we are to have no doctrine on the
subject in question, it may very readily, on the same
principle, and for the same reasons, be shown that
" we are under no necessity to have some theory " in
regard to these other subjects. An objector to the
formation of a definite dogmatic conception of
regeneration might subject the classic passage
(John iii. 3-5) to a similar criticism as that to
which Dr. Chartcris has subjected 2 Timothy iii. 16,
alleging that the Greek word translated " born again "
has a meaning which we " cannot realise," and covers
a " knowledge too high for us," and that " it is a
lock, not a key." There would, indeed, seem to be
special considerations in favour of the application of
such critical principles to this particular passage, as
our Saviour invests the subject, even in His expla
nation, with an atmosphere of mystery, telling
Nicodemus that the agency of the Spirit in this
marvellous change is like that of the wind that
bloweth where it listeth, whose sound one heareth,
but whose source or destination he cannot know.

It is true the author docs not profess to base his
conclusion exclusively on the ground that this

«t67rm.<rroc ELSEWHERE EXPLAINED. 159

mysterious word (6 eon vev OTTOS) is not explained in
the passage in which it occurs, and that he takes
the ground that it is not explained by " other
Scriptures." This latter position, however, it is
respectfully submitted, he has failed to establish.
What he says in this connection (pp. 36-41) is
quite conclusive as against the advocates of the
theory of different degrees of Inspiration, and the
anti-dogmatic dogmatism of Matthew .Arnold, and
what may be called the Christo-centric theory of
Inspiration, which undertakes to judge of the import
ance or the authority of any portion of Scripture
by the amount of insight it evinces into the essence
of Christianity, and thus assumes the ability of the
reader, or at least of the critic, to judge, a priori,
what it is which constitutes the essence cf Chris
tianity. While successfully assailing these theories
of Inspiration, however, the author has advanced
nothing warranting the conclusion that the term
^eoTn'eucrrcK? is not explained " in other Scriptures."
His task involved all the difficulty peculiar to the
task of proving a negative, and would require an
examination of all the passages of Scripture which
have any bearing upon the elucidation of its import,
and certainly of all those passages on which the
advocates of a Plenary, Verbal Inspiration rely. As
our author has not attempted this investigation, it
must be concluded that he has not furnished the
premises necessary to the vindication of his con-

i Go SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

elusion, that the Scriptures " do not enable us to
ascertain the nature or the extent of Inspiration."

As it is much easier to criticise than to construct,
it is but fair to ask what position Dr. Chartcris
himself holds in regard to the relation of the Sacred
Scriptures to the agency of the inspiring Spirit.
His book professedly rejects the doctrine of a Verbal
Inspiration, the doctrine of different degrees of
Inspiration, the doctrine of the Christo-ccntric
theorists, the doctrine that the Scriptures are
wholly Divine without any human element, and the
doctrine that they are wholly human without any
element of the Divine, and concludes that the human
and the Divine are so combined and blended that
" we cannot redd the marches " between the human
and the Divine in Holy Scripture, adding, as an
index to his view, " Oela TTO.VTOL KOL avOptoTTLva
TTOLVTOL" (Lect. ii. p. 50).

It is very difficult to sec the TTOV crrw of our
esteemed author. He has, of course, to encounter
in this matter the difficulty which besets the anti-
dogmatists (of whom he is certainly not one), as he
starts with the assumption that the Scriptures " do
not enable us to ascertain the nature or the extent
of Inspiration," and, proceeding upon this principle,
cannot venture to advance any theory on the sub
ject, save the negative theory that there is no theory
deducible from Scripture. But it has occurred in
this experiment as it must ever occur where one

APOSTLES MORE THAN ORDINARY HISTORIANS. 161

attempts, on anti-dogmatic principles, to treat of the
teaching of Scripture on any subject. Our author
winds up on p. 50, as has been already shown,
with what, if it means anything, must be regarded
as a theory that the Scriptures arc " all human and
all Divine." If they are all human and all Divine,
the only conclusion, if we are to ascribe to their
language any Divine authority, is that the Holy
Ghost so actuated, and controlled, and energised
the human agent that the resultant utterance, or
resultant record, as the case might be, was a Divine,
and not a human, record, or a record in human
speech or language, whose terms were determined
by the inspiration of the indwelling Spirit. This is
so obvious a conclusion that Dr. Chartcris, in com
menting 'p. 47) on our Saviour's promise to send
the Comforter (John xvi. 13) to enable Mis disciples
to understand His life and teachings and to guide
them into all the truth, says that " if this were
true, the Apostles were more than ordinary historians."
Not satisfied with this testimony, he goes still
further, and adds : " They were inspired men,
speaking of what they had been supernaturally
enabled to understand and declare." This is all
that the most rigid verbalist could ask. It ascribes
both the Revelation and the Inspiration to the
Holy Ghost, giving to the Spirit as thorough an
agency in the efflux as in the influx of the truth
communicated. The declaration of the truth by

1 62 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

the Apostles, if we are to accept our author's account
of the matter, was as truly supernatural as the
revelation of it to their understandings. This,
however, is simply the doctrine our author has
rejected, for it is impossible to discriminate a
supernatural declaration from a statement super-
naturally determined, not simply in substance (for
that had been already achieved in the process of
Revelation), but in form, which embraces the struc
ture and language of the announcement.

The foregoing may suffice to show the difficulty
of recognising, as Dr. Charteris docs, the fact that
" something higher than ordinary honesty and
accuracy must be ascribed to the writers of Scripture
if their writings arc to be accepted at all," and yet
refusing to recognise an agency of the Holy Spirit
which extended to the determination of the language
of the utterance, or the record, of the message they
were commissioned to deliver. The "something"
whereby the sacred writers were raised above mere
honesty and accuracy, if we are to judge of it by
Dr. Charteris's own account of its origin and extent,
was a supernatural influence which, so far as the
Revelation was concerned, imparted to them an
understanding of spiritual things beyond all human
capacity ; if so, may it not be fairly concluded that
this same supernatural influence, which our author
confesses extended to the declaration as well as to
the Revelation, imparted to them a power to utter,

/.\y/:A7-.Vc7r FROM SUPERNATURAL REVELATION. 163

or to record, these spiritual things in a manner above
all that the human mind in the exercise of its
natural powers can achieve ? If the uttering or
the recording was as much above the natural
capacity of the human agent as the Revelation was
(and this seems to be conceded when it is acknow
ledged that both were supernatural), surely the
result must have been as completely Divine in the
one case as in the other. But if the resultant
utterance, or record, was as truly Divine as the
Revelation (which is certainly implied in the con
cession that it was equally supernatural), there could
have been no room left for the mistakes, and errors,
and discrepancies wherewith some modern critics
credit the sacred text. There is no argument
against the perfection of the record which docs not
lie with equal force against the perfection of the
Revelation. If a supcrnaturally endowed writer may,
notwithstanding his endowment, produce an im
perfect record, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion
that a supcrnaturally endowed seer may, notwith
standing a like endowment, fail to catch the import
of the heavenly vision. There can be no reason
for modifying the Divine agency by the imperfec
tion of the human agent, in the one case, that will
not warrant a like modification in the other. The
Christian apologist cannot surrender the outwork
of the Inspiration without betraying the citadel of
the Revelation.

LECTURE VII.

SOME OBJECTIONS ARISING FROM MISAPPRE
HENSIONS.

"~*HIS opposition to the framing of a theory of
-^- Inspiration seems to originate in a twofold mis
apprehension of what is meant by that expression.
(i) It assumes that the advocates of the verbal theory
undertake to define the mode in which the inspiring
Spirit operates on the mind of the agent He employs,
and how it is that He determines the speaker or the
writer in the selection of the language in which the
resultant utterance, or record, is expressed. This
assumption is entirely groundless. They do not
profess to have any theory regarding these mys
terious operations. In these inscrutable movements
of the Holy Ghost, as in all instances of the Divine
activities, the mode is unsearchable, and the nature of
the action past finding out. We cannot know how
God does anything, and cannot tell how He cither
" reveals " or " inspires." It docs not follow, however,
from our ignorance of the mode of the Divine action,
that we are shut out from having any theory in
regard to its revealed results ; we know not how God
created the heavens and the earth, or how He new-

EXr 1-'ROM SPIRITS AGENCY IN GRACE. 165

creates a soul dead in trespasses and sins ; but we
are nevertheless warranted in believing that, in both
cases, the work is entirely His. If we arc to accept
the express testimony of Scripture, we cannot but
believe that the creative agency did not cease with
the creation of matter, but that, on the contrary, it
continued in the ordering of the starry array, the
production of earth's fauna and flora, and extended
to the fitting up of our world as a suitable habita
tion fur moral intelligences. In like manner, and
for like revealed reasons, we believe that the result
of the action of the Holy Spirit in the new birth is
the impartation of life, and that the agency of the
Spirit does not terminate when the soul is quickened
into spiritual life, but that, on the contrary, it is
continued in the maintenance of the life imparted.
The reason of this our belief is, that the Scriptures
teach that God docs not abandon Ilis work in either
case, but continues to foster and cherish it until He
has attained the ends which, in His infinite wisdom,
He has seen fit to propose. Nor is it otherwise in
the case under consideration. He does not begin
the work and cease before He has achieved the
end. He dues not take the first step toward the
communication of His will to men by an infallible
revelation of that will to His holy Prophets and
Apostles, and then so modify His subsequent
action on the minds He had thus supplied with
His own imperishable truth as to leave it optional

1 66 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION,

with His ambassadors in what terms they would
deliver a message which had been borne in upon
their understandings .with all the unequivocal
tokens of a Divine authentication. The Scriptures
know nothing of an atheistic evolution in the
works of God, and they know nothing of such
an evolution in His word. His agency docs not end
with furnishing the material or substance of the
future universe, leaving the form and details to be
wrought out by the forces of nature, nor does it end
with furnishing to His servants the substance of the
future Revelation, leaving them to mould and fashion
it as they themselves may list.

This is a matter expressly revealed, and must
be held by us if we would avoid the sin of
questioning the truth of the Divine testimony ; for
we are informed by the Apostle Peter that " no
prophecy of the Scripture is of any private inter
pretation," and the reason assigned settles the
question regarding the measure of choice left to the
Prophet in making the record, for the Apostle acids :
" For the prophecy came not in old time by the will
of man ; but men spake from God, being moved by
the Holy Ghost " (2 Peter i. 21). This is a testimony
respecting the authorship of the recorded prophecy ;
and the doctrine it teaches is that the record was
determined, not by the will of man, but by the Holy
Ghost. (2) A like misapprehension prevails in regard
to the import of the term Verbal Inspiration. By

INSPIRATION NOT DICTATION. 167

the opponents of the theory, it is very commonly
understood to teach that the Holy Spirit dictated to
the inspired speaker or writer the words he was to
employ. This is an idea entertained by no intelli
gent advocate of the doctrine in the present day.
There • is no doubt that Revelation has been made
by dictation, and in diverse other modes, as when
God spake to Adam, and Noah, and Abraham, and
Moses, and as He did from Mount Sinai to the
whole congregation of Israel. The nearest approach
to Inspiration by dictation is furnished in the instance
of the commission to write given to the seer of
Patmos. He is not only told to write, but he is told
what to write to the seven churches in Asia. This,
however, is, strictly speaking, not Inspiration, but
Revelation. There is no evidence that the Apostle's
writing kept pace, pari passn, with the Divine dic
tation. As he informs us himself (chap. i. 2), he
" bare witness of the word of God, and of the testi
mony of Jesus Christ, and of whatsoever things he
saw " ; but there is nothing to warrant the inference
that, in the presence of his august Lord, whose match
less glory filled him with such awe, and while the
wondrous visions wherewith he was favoured were
enacting, he occupied himself in writing.

An incident recorded in the tenth chapter may be
taken as an index to the order that obtained between
the Revelation and the writing. The Apostle tells
us that when the seven thunders uttered their voices,

1 68 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

he was about to write (^/xeXXo^ ypa^etv), but was
commanded to seal what they had spoken, and was
forbidden to write their utterances. This incident
seems to teach that the dictation, which was simply
a process of Revelation, was over before the Apostle
proceeded to write what had been thus revealed.

But however close the connection, however near
to the instantaneous may have been the sequence,
the dictation belonged to the process of Revelation,
and not to that of Inspiration, and those passages
which speak of dictation, whether from Sinai, or in
Patmos, or face to face with God's servants any
where, cannot be adduced as proofs of Inspiration
by an external audible utterance. When all that dic
tation can effect is done, there still remains room for
misapprehension and consequent misstatement if the
human agent be left to himself in giving expression
to the communication made orally to himself by the
Divine utterance, however explicit, or however clear.

The doctrine of Verbal Inspiration hypothecates
no such theory of the Spirit's agency in the utter
ance or the record of what the Prophet, or Apostle,
or Evangelist, was commissioned to communicate.
All the theory assumes is, that the agency of the
Spirit in the transaction extended to the form and
language in which the human agent made known to
others what lib had received from God. How the
Spirit effected and secured this result is inscrutable,
as all God's personal acts are inscrutable to all finite

INSPIRATION AND THE ANALOGY OF THE FAITH. 169

intelligences, whether human or angelic. The un-
scarchablcness of the mode, however must not lead
us to gainsay the result, when that result has been
affirmed and authenticated by the testimony of the
Prophets and Apostles with all the explicitness with
which an}- doctrine or fact can be expressed. " lie
that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that
formed the eye, shall He not see? He that tcachcth
man knowledge, shall He not know?" and He that
is the Author of man's being, the Father of our
spirits, shall He not have power to determine man's
thoughts, and mould and fashion man's speech ?
The denial of the feasibility of the process assumed
in the theory of Verbal Inspiration, seems to imply
most inadequate conceptions of the relation of the
Author of our nature to our intellectual and moral
faculties. Surely it is not too much to hold that He
who gave to man all the powers of thought and
speech which mark him out as destined for the
contemplation of Divine things, and for fellowship
with his Creator, must be able, by avenues of access
and modes of approach and intercourse of which we
can take no cognisance, to enter into the citadel of
the soul, and determine its inner activities, and
mould its thoughts into such forms of speech as
shall express with absolute exactitude the mystery
of the Divine will. In taking this ground the
advocate of Verbal Inspiration cannot be charged
with presumption, or be regarded as treading upon

1 70 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

forbidden ground, or as prophesying inconsistently
with the analogy of the faith. On the contrary,
those who deny the doctrine of an inspiration which
extended to the form and language of the Scripture
record must, if consistent, reject some of the most
important and precious truths of the economy of
grace. Reference has been made already to the
doctrine of Regeneration to illustrate the truth of
the position that the inscrutableness of the mode of
the Divine acts cannot be regarded as an argument
against the fact or the result of the Divine action.
This doctrine may also serve to illustrate the feasi
bility of all that the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration
demands at the hands of the Divine agency. That
doctrine, as has been already shown, teaches that
God, in the regenerating act, imparts spiritual life to
a dead soul, and initiates a change in which all the
man's thoughts of God and sin, together with all his
feelings and volitions in regard to both, are com
pletely revolutionised. Is there anything in the
doctrine for which verbal inspirationists contend, out
of analogy with this great fundamental doctrine of
the Bible ? Or, to put the question as the advocates
of the doctrine are entitled to put it, can any one
challenge that doctrine without challenging prin
ciples that lie at the very foundation of the primary
doctrine of an applied redemption ? These re
marks may serve in some measure to remove
misconceptions of the doctrine in question, and to

COLERIDGE'S OBJECTION EXAMINED. 171

show that its advocates have not espoused a theory
which does violence to the laws of thought or sets
at defiance the principles which govern human lan
guage. Let it be clearly understood that Verbal
Inspiration neither teaches nor involves the doctrine
of verbal dictation, and that it assumes no principle
in regard to the Divine agency, in its action on the
soul of man, which is not in harmony with the
analogy of the faith.

(3) Closely allied to this misconception of Verbal
Inspiration is that entertained by such opponents
of the doctrine as Coleridge, who speaks of it in
terms of almost unmeasured ridicule and contempt,
as unworthy of a moment's entertainment by any
person of intelligence. In his estimation, the
doctrine is absolutely incredible, and worthy to be
classed with the legends of monks and rabbis. In
his " Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit" (pp. 98, 99)
lie thus delivers his estimate: — " All the miracles
which the legends of monk or rabbi contain,
can scarcely be put in competition, on the score
of complication, inexplicableness, the absence of
all intelligible use or purpose, and of circuitous self-
frustration, with those that must be assumed by the
maintainers of this doctrine, in order to give effect
to the series of miracles, by which all the nominal
composers of the Hebrew nation before the time of
Ezra, of whom there arc any remains, were succes
sively transformed into automaton compositors — so

172 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

that the original text should be in sentiment, image,
word, syntax, and composition an exact impression
of the divine copy ! "

Had Coleridge been better acquainted with the
doctrine he has denounced in these terms of con
temptuous scorn, he had, doubtless, written in a very
different strain. It is only on the assumption that
the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration reduces the sacred
writers to the rank of mere automata that such
language can be justified. The theory here de
nounced proceeds upon no such assumption. As has
been well said in reply to this charge, " the sacred
writers were not l pcnsl but l penmen! "

The Holy Spirit selected for His infinitely wise
and gracious purpose intelligent moral agents, and
used them, as such, in producing what we have in
the Bible, a faithful, infallible record of the Divine
will, a record upon every word of which we can
rely as a word determined by the agency of the
Spirit and the best that could have been selected
to give expression to the thoughts of God.

The vindication of the theory against this mis
conception of it has been already given in replying
to that misconception of it which represents it as
implying, on the part of the inspiring Spirit, a
process of dictation. The Holy Spirit, in employing
the human agent, did not deal with him as if he
were a piece of mechanism constructed out of dead,
dull, insensate, unspiritual, unintelligent matter. The

THE PRINCIPLE AT ISSUE FUNDAMENTAL. 173

agent was selected because he possessed qualities
the opposite of all these — qualities which fitted him
to be the medium of communicating spiritual truths
to intelligent moral agents like himself. Having
chosen him for this reason, the Spirit did not
employ him in such a way as to ignore, or hold
in abeyance, the qualities on the ground of which
lie had chosen him. On the contrary, lie brought
into requisition ever}* power whose exercise was
necessary to the apprehension of the Revelation,
and the communication of it to men.

The only point to be considered here is whether
this could be effected without reducing the agent
employed to the rank of what Coleridge calls an
automaton, or what other opponents of the verbal
theory designate a machine. As already intimated,
this point has been settled over and over again in
the preceding discussion. If the Holy Spirit can
regenerate the soul when it is dead in trespasses and
sins, and so act upon the understanding as to change
its views of sin and holiness, and upon the Feelings
and Conativc powers, as to produce repentance, faith,
.and new obedience, inspiring love to God and a
determination to live for His glory — if the Spirit
of God's grace can do all this without reducing men
to the rank of machines, or automata^ the subjects
of this mighty transforming power not only feeling
free throughout the entire process, but realising in
it an emancipation from the triple bondage of

174 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

Satan, sin, and death, surely it cannot be regarded
as unreasonable to hold that this same Spirit,
acting upon the same powers of the human mind,
can, without destroying the freedom of the agent
or reducing him to an automaton, determine his
choice of language in giving expression to the
truths He had imparted to him by Revelation.
He who can determine a volition, which certainly
involves an act of preferring or choosing in regard
to the various objects contemplated by the human
mind, can certainly determine a volition in regard
to that particular class of objects embraced under
the head of language ; and if He can effect a choice
without destroying the freedom of the agent in the
one case, there is no rational ground for questioning
His ability to do it in the other. In a word, there
is no objection that can be urged against the
doctrine of Verbal Inspiration on the score of its
inconsistency with the freedom of the moral intelli
gences employed by the Holy Spirit, which will not
be found to lie with equal force against the doctrine
of Regeneration and Conversion. In fact, it will
be found that objections of this class usually arise
cither from misconceptions of the doctrine itself,
or from very imperfect views of the nature of free
agency, or from most inadequate conceptions of the
Spirit's agency in applying the redemption pur
chased by Christ. All such objections are, in
principle, answered when the Pelagian and semi-

OBJECTIONS BASED ON PELAGIAN PRINCIPLES. 175

Pelagian objections to the Augustinian doctrine of
sin and grace have been met.

(4) A similar objection to the two preceding has
been founded on the diversity of styles to be found
in the sacred writings. If Inspiration extended to
the words, it is alleged that there neither would, nor
could, be any diversity in composition proceeding
from the one inspiring Spirit. This is simply the
former objection in other terms, and rests on pre
cisely similar grounds, and is to be met in the same
way. It rests, ultimately, on the same Pelagian or
semi-Pelagian foundation, whether its advocates are
conscious of its bearings or not. Anti-Calvinists
allege that if the man be passive in regeneration, he
must be acted upon as a mere machine and not
moved to act as a free moral agent. To this
objection Calvinists reply that the regenerating act
of the Holy Spirit reaches to all the powers of the
soul. That action does not lead the man to act as
under the irrational force of a blind impulse. It is
an action whereby the understanding is enlightened
and the will renewed, and the result is not simply a
holy act to which the man is constrained, but the
implantation or creation of a hoi}' habitus which is
the basis and active principle of a holy activity.
The activities of the regenerate man are free acts,
and their frecncss arises from the absolutely thorough
efficaciousness of the agency of the Spirit in effect
ing the change by which the new activities have

176 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

been originated. The regenerate man, although he
has come under a power whose analogue is that put
forth in the creation of light, and in the resurrection
of the dead, is throughout moved and actuated as a
free agent, and is utterly unconscious of any co-
action either from without or from within.

But besides, and as bearing directly upon the
objection now under consideration, this marvellous
change does not obliterate those personal peculiarities
by which the individual is distinguished from others.
Christians, though dwelt in and actuated, in the
Divine life, by one and the selfsame Spirit, who
worketh in them both to will and to do of His own
good pleasure, retain their individual personal charac
teristics. This is the law of the Divine administra
tion of the kingdom of grace, and we have no reason
to expect that the administration will proceed upon
different principles in the kingdom of glory. The
distinctive characteristics of God's people will, doubt
less, abide even when the goal of absolute conformity
to the image of the Firstborn shall have been
reached in the estate of glorification. The effect of
the complete and perfect sanctification of the entire
mystical body of Christ will not involve the annihila
tion of the individuality of the members of which it
is composed.

In like manner, Calvinists contend that the work
of the Spirit in Inspiration may be perfect, reaching
to every power of the individual requisite to the task

PLENARY INSPIRATION SECURES VARIETY. 177

and yet the individual peculiarities of the writer
remain as marked as if no such influence were put
forth upon him. Indeed, there is philosophic warrant,
as well as Scriptural authority, for going much
farther, and claiming that the more thoroughly
appropriating and efficacious the work of the Spirit
in taking possession of, and actuating, the human
agent, the more thoroughly must the resultant record
be characterised by the individual peculiarities by
which he was personally distinguished. The action of
the one and the selfsame Spirit gives no warrant for
the inference of unity of style on which the objection is
based. No one expects such unity of result where the
same musician performs upon a variety of musical
instruments. A piano can be made to give forth
sounds exactly like a harp, but this result can be ob
tained only by the introduction of a contrivance which
interferes with the constitution of the instrument.
That is, absolute uniformity and conformity in the
musical result from two different kinds of instru
ments is not obtained by the operation of one and
the selfsame musician, but by a process of modifica
tion which interferes with the native structure of the
instruments from which the music is evoked. And
so it must be in the case under consideration. Uni
formity and conformity of literary style from different
writers could be obtained by no species of influence
which did not interfere with, and modify, and sup
press, or hold in abeyance, the individual charactcris-

1 78 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

tics of the human agents. The more thoroughly
the individual writer was taken possession of by the
inspiring Spirit, the more thoroughly would his
personal characteristics be revealed in the resultant
record ; while the objection assumes that the more
thorough the actuating agency of the Spirit, the
more thoroughly must these personal characteristics
be neutralised and set at nought. The objection,
therefore, if tested by laws which govern the opera
tions of the human mind, must be set aside as
utterly unphilosophic.

Dr. Hill in his " Lectures on Divinity " urges this
objection with great confidence. " There are," he
says, " peculiarities of expression and a marked
manner by which a person of taste and discernment
may clearly distinguish the writings of every one
from those of every other. But had all written
uniformly under the same inspiration of suggestion,
there could not have been a difference of manner
corresponding to the difference of character, and the
expression used by all might have been expected to
be the best possible. These circumstances," Dr. Hill
adds, " lead us to abandon the notion that the
Apostles wrote under a continual inspiration of
suggestion." (Book II. chap. i.).

It will be seen, at once, that this objection, as
stated by Dr. Hill, lies with equal force against his
own theory of a Partial Inspiration, rising occasion
ally to a full Plenary Inspiration of suggestion. If

/>A\ HILL'S OBJECTION EXAMINED. 179

the fact that one sacred writer writes in a marked
manner, using peculiar expressions by which his
writings may be distinguished from those of every
other, proves that the Apostles did not always write
under a continual inspiration of suggestion, it is
equally valid against Dr. Hill's doctrine that the
Apostles sometimes wrote under this species of
influence, for the sacred writers invariably write in a
marked and characteristic manner. If it be incon
sistent with the doctrine of a Verbal Inspiration to
admit that the sacred writers impress upon their
compositions their own individual literary character
istics, it must also be inconsistent with the theory of
an occasional Inspiration of suggestion, for every
sacred writer writes like himself. John writes like
John, Paul like Paul, James like James, and Peter
like Peter, from beginning to end of their writings.
On the theory that the inspiration of suggestion
obliterates all personal literary characteristics, it is
manifest that in no instance can it be claimed that
the Apostle wrote under this spiritual influence.
This, of course, is all one with saying that the sacred
writings furnish no data for Dr. Hill's theory. The
theory which denies that the sacred writers wrote
under an afflatus of the Spirit, determining the
language they employed, when they wrote like
themselves, must, if carried out, end in the denial
of Verbal Inspiration altogether.

But one of the most objectionable features of this

i So SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

objection is that it assumes that the Holy Spirit
must be restricted to one style. What authority, it
may be asked, is there for this assumption ? Is it a
deduction from His style of working in external
nature ? Arc the flowers wherewith He decks the
mead all of one pattern and hue ? Or is it not a
fact that He so works that no two individuals, even
of the same species, whether within the domain of
earth's fauna or fora, can be found exactly alike ?
Will our objectors carry out the principle of the
objection here, and found an argument upon the
diversity of style and variety of form against the
unity or plenitude of the agency ? There is one
style of workmanship in the violet, another in the
rose, another in the vine, another in the oak, another
in the hyssop, and yet all these workcth the one and
the selfsame Spirit. \Vhen He wishes to produce a
particular result He fashions a particular organism.
He never holds Himself bound, even within the
limits of the same species, to observe an absolutely
uniform rule ; and when He willed to furnish His
Church with poetry He created and qualified, by His
providence and grace, the sweet singer of Israel and
his fellow-psalmists, whose songs have been wafted
down through the centuries, and have almost en
abled the Church militant to antedate the rap
turous anthems of the Church triumphant. And
when He wished to furnish her with the mighty
arguments and logical formula which form the

PECULIARITIES OF ll'RITEKS PREDETERMINED. 181

greater part of the theological material of the New
Testament Revelation, He raised up, and trained in
Tarsus and at the feet of Gamaliel, the future
Apostle of the Gentiles. His instruments were not
selected ex post facto, but were framed and fashioned
and cultured out of a predctcrminate purpose,
which extended to everything requisite to their
equipment for the specific end Me had in view.
Having thus prepared the instrument for the specific
work, lie employed it in pursuance of His ante
cedent purpose. He did not ignore the peculi
arities which in His providence He had produced,
and which it was throughout His purpose to employ.
On the contrary, having created and fitted the
instrument for the achievement of the end deter
mined, lie consecrated it and set it apart to the
sacred use on which His mind was set from the
beginning. l?y doing this, however, and doing it
thoroughly, He produced what we have in the
Sacred Scriptures, diversity of style, proceeding from
the one infallible unique source — the one inspiring
Spirit.

5. Very much akin to the preceding is the objec
tion based on variety of narration. It is alleged
that if the Spirit inspired all the narrators to the
same extent, there could be no variety whatever in
the narratives of the same events or discourses.
The statement of this objection would seem to be
all that is necessary to the refutation of it. The

1 82 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

objection would have some force if it rested upon a
variation which amounted to a contradiction, or the
introduction of something which, as a matter of fact,
was untrue ; but a variety of narration involving no
contradiction among the narrators, and introducing
nothing untrue, furnishes no ground for the con
clusion that the variations could not have proceeded
from the common authorship of the one and the
selfsame Spirit. In order to frame an objection
out of such variations in narratives of the same
events, or of the same discourses, as we have in the
Holy Scriptures, it is necessary to assume that it
was the design of the inspiring Spirit to present
each event simply and solely in one particular aspect.
There is, of course, no warrant for such assumption
in the analogy either of external nature or Revela
tion. What reason can be assigned for the limita
tion of the Holy Spirit to such uniformity of
narration ? If He saw fit to edify His Church by
diversity of representation, and in His providence
arranged that Matthew should have observed what
he narrates and that John should have observed a
different phase of the same incident, and described
it accordingly, what objection can there be to His
doing so ? Does the work of recalling to their
minds all that they had seen or heard imply that
He must recall to the mind of each all that the
others had heard, or seen, just as the others had
heard and seen, and not as each had heard and seen

OBJECTION FROM VARIETY OF XARKATIOX. 183

for himself individually ? If there was variety in
the original cognition — and that, too, a Spirit-
designed variety — should we not rather conclude
from the very nature and design of the work to
which, as witnesses, the writers were called, that
there would be a like variation in the Heaven-re
vealed and Spirit-inspired reminiscence ? The only
restriction implied in the nature or the design of
the work which the Spirit called them to execute, is
the restriction imposed by fidelity to truth. The
Holy Spirit cannot be represented as accepting and
recalling, for communication to the Church, an erro
neous impression made on the minds of His servants
by what they had seen, or heard.

The impugners of Verbal Inspiration appeal, in
support of this objection, with all the exultation of
conscious victory, to the variation manifested in the
several accounts given by the Evangelists of the
inscription placed by Pilate over the Saviour upon
the cross. This variation they regard as the
experimentum cnicis of the Verbal Inspiration theory.
Dean Alford puts the objection founded on this
diversity in the narratives as follows : — " The title
over the cross was written in Greek. According
then to the Verbal Inspiration theory, each evangelist
has recorded the exact words of the inscription :
not t/te general sense, but the inscription itself, not a
letter less or more. This is absolutely necessary to
the theory. Its advocates must not be allowed, with

1 84 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

convenient inconsistency, to take refuge in a
common-sense view of the matter wherever their
theory fails them, and still to uphold it in the main.
And how it will here apply the following comparison
will show : — •

Matthew : " This is Jesus the King of the Jews "

(Matt, xxvii. 27).

Mark: "The King of the Jews" (Mark xv. 26).
Luke : " The King of the Jews this "

(Luke xxiii. 38).

John : "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews"

(John xix. 19).

In trying to construct an argument from this
variation in these accounts of this inscription, Dean
Alford assumes what he has no right to assume, viz.,
that the theory he is assailing requires that each
narrator shall give a full report of the thing narrated,
whereas the theory simply demands that each narra
tion shall contain nothing that is inconsistent with
truth or fact, or with any other inspired account of
the same thing. It is a remarkable fact that Dr.
Alford has, in the words above quoted, furnished an
illustration of the validity of this principle. He says
that " the title over the cross was written in Greek,"
and does not give a single hint of its having been
written also in Hebrew and Latin. Now would he
regard himself as fairly dealt with if one were to
found on his account of this same inscription a

OBJECTION FROM INSCRIPTION OX THE CROSS. 185

charge of contradicting Matthew and Mark, \vho do
not tell us in what language it was written, or of
contradicting Luke and John, who inform us that it
was written also in Hebrew and Latin ? Dr. Alford,
if he considered such a charge worthy of notice at
all, would consider himself abundantly vindicated by
replying (i) that what he said was true, for it is a
fact that the inscription was written in Greek ; (2)
that he did not profess to be giving a full account
in regard to that particular point. This reply
would, undoubtedly, be considered satisfactory by all
reasonable men, and no rejoinder would be listened
to which did not establish the contrary of one or
other of these two points. His accuser must show,
either that the title was not written in Greek, or,
failing this, that the author was professedly giving a
full account of the languages in which the title was
written. Anything short of this would be regarded
as mere quibbling on the part of his assailant.

It is hardly necessary to point out that the
principles involved in this defence are just as avail
able for the advocates of the Verbal Inspiration
theory as they are for Dean Alford. Except he can
show, what he has made no attempt to show, either
(l) that some of the accounts contain what is not
true, or (2) that each evangelist professed to be
giving a full account of the titles, his charge must
fall to the ground, and his argument prove a failure.
If Dean Alford, for a purpose deemed by himself

1 86 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

laudable and legitimate, viz., the overthrow of the
Verbal Inspiration theory, could, in consistency with
truth, select one of the facts presented in the
accounts of the title over the cross, to the exclusion
of two other facts of the same class and of equal
prominence and importance, on what ground can he
object to the Holy Spirit being represented as acting
on the same principle of selecting particular facts,
or phases of facts, for a specific and an important
end ? Unless it can be shown from the language of
the narratives that they contain something contrary
to truth or fact, or that they contradict one another,
or that it was the avowed, or the implied, object of
each narrator to give an exact copy of the title, the
objection is utterly groundless.

From such style of criticism let us turn and look
at this title in the light of the august occasion which
has given rise to the writing of it, and consider
whether we cannot find one great central idea to
which Pilate was providentially guided to give ex
pression in the wording of it, and to which each of
the four evangelists bears witness, and to which
they all bear witness in harmony with the law of
evidence so as to show that they have not been
guilty of collusion. The controversy which Pilate
had with the accusers of Christ, the question which
Pilate put to Him in regard to their accusations, the
subject in regard to which the soldiers mocked Him
both before, and during, His crucifixion, the point

CF.XTKAL WE, I THE SAME AV ALL. 187

brought out with prominence in the mockery and
raillery of the chief priests, was the one which
Pilate, as the instrument of God's providence, was
moved to embody in the epigraph which he placed
over Him on the cross. The point brought out so
prominently by Pilate during the progress, and at
the close, of the trial, was that the representatives of
the Jewish nation were accusing and rejecting their
King. " Behold your King," says the Roman gover
nor. " Crucify Him, crucify Him," cry the Jews.
" Shall I crucify your King ? " is the rejoinder of
Pilate. " We have no king but Caesar," is the reply
of these bloodthirsty men. This was the charge
they preferred against Him, that He claimed to be
a King, and to this Pilate again and again returns.
It was so manifestly the sum and substance of the
charge they laid against Him before Pilate that the
very soldiers caught the idea and mocked Him, cry
ing : " Hail, King of the Jews." In conformity with
this leading feature of the trial, is the central fact to
which all the four evangelists bear witness in their
accounts of the inscription. Whatever else they
omit, they all so order their narration that the
momentous, the awful fact is proclaimed that the
Sufferer who hangs on the accursed tree is the King
of the Jews. To take the ground that the Holy
Spirit, in placing this fact on record, was bound to
keep by the literal wording of the title, is worse than
trifling with this august subject. But except on the

1 88 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

assumption of such an obligation, or at least of such
a purpose, the objection is destitute of force.

The sum and substance of the whole matter is
just this : the Holy Spirit availed Himself of the
knowledge which, in His providence, each evangelist
possessed from his reading of the three inscriptions,
perhaps translating, one the Hebrew, and another
the Latin, and another giving, without translation
of the other forms of the inscription, the one which
needed no translation for the purpose of presenting,
with that profusion of variety which characterises
His agency both in nature and grace, the fearful
fact that the Jews, in the rejection and crucifixion of
Jesus of Nazareth, had rejected and crucified their
King. The object aimed at of necessity involved
variety of narration, but so long as the variety
reached not to a variation from truth and fact, there
can be no valid objection against the procedure, or
against the ascription of the language employed
to the agency of the Holy Ghost.

6. There is what some regard as an insuperable
objection to the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration,
founded upon the ignorance, or lack of knowledge,
manifested on some occasions, in regard to some
subjects by the inspired writers. Paul, for example,
confessed that he did not know that Caiaphas was
high-priest, or how many persons he had baptised
at Corinth. The Rev. C. A. Row, in his Bampton
lectures on the " Christian Evidences viewed in

OBJECTION FROM \ CO A'. I'll. EXAMINED. 189

relation to Modern Thought " (second edition,
pp. 45-47), advances a kindred objection, on the
confession of this same apostle (i Cor. vii.) that he
had no command of the Lord for some of his
teaching : " Now concerning virgins, I have no
commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment
as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be
faithful." Mr. Row's comment on this and like
.statements in the context is, that the Apostle draws
a distinction " between his own Apostolical judgment
and the express commands of our Lord. The
context," he alleges, " shows that his own decision
on the points in question was not intended to have
the force of invariable law, but to be subject to
modification in conformity with the peculiar circum
stances and character of the individual."

The answer to this class of objections is obvious.
(i) The objectors confound Revelation with Inspi
ration. Because the sacred writer was not rendered
omniscient he was not inspired. It does not follow
that because Paul was not informed by the Spirit
in regard to the priesthood of Caiaphas, or kept in
memory of the numbers baptised by him in Corinth,
he was not inspired to make record of the fact of
his ignorance. We see noiv a sufficient reason for
the record of the latter deficiency in Paul's remini
scence. He was guided to make it as an antidote to
that sacramcntarianism which places the administra
tion of sacraments above the preaching of the word,

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

and makes the sacrament of baptism indispensable
to salvation as the only channel through which
grace, in the first instance, reaches the soul of man.
Had Paul held this view of the ordinance of
baptism, he certainly had never penned the passage
in question. A Ritualist could not have given
thanks that he had baptised so few, or have placed,
as Paul has done, the preaching of the Gospel above
the administration of that rite.

But instead of serving the cause of the anti-
Verbalists in whose behalf these passages are
constantly adduced, they furnish conclusive evidence
of the necessity of the presence of the inspiring
Spirit and of His agency in the production of an
infallible record. If one who was not one whit
behind the chiefcst of the Apostles could not keep
in memory more than five or six instances of his
having administered the ordinance of baptism at a
particular place, is it reasonable to believe that he
could have held in accurate and infallible reminis
cence the unsearchable riches of Christ which he
was commissioned to make known ? A memory
which could not retain and reproduce an inventory
of a few baptisms, was certainly not one to be
trusted in the retention and reproduction of the
whole counsel of God set forth in the writings of
this Apostle. Our opponents, therefore, not only
gain nothing, but, on the contrary, damage their
own cause, by references to Apostolic ignorance or

A'O COMMAND REGARDING THINGS INDIFFERENT. 191

to instances of acknowledged, defective, or imperfect
reminiscence. The more imperfect the human
agent, the more manifest the necessity of the
supernatural agency of the Holy Ghost.

It is difficult to sec the force or warrant of
Prebendary Row's argument from the distinction
drawn by Paul " between his own Apostolical
judgment and the express commands of our Lord."
His comment on this distinction is, that Paul's
"decision on the points in question was not intended
to have the force of invariable law, but to be subject
to modification in conformity with the peculiar
circumstances and character of the individual." It
may well be asked : Mow does this Apostolic dis
crimination help the Prebendary in his argument ?
Docs the fact that Paul has made this distinction
between Christ's commands and his own Apostolical
judgment prove that he was not inspired to record
the fact that he did make such distinction, or that,
in making the record of it, he was not determined
by the Spirit, who moved him to record it, to select
the most appropriate language for the expression of
it? If the points in question were matters on which
there was to be no invariable law, was it not well
for these Corinthians to know that within these
limits they were left free by Christ to modify their
action " in conformity with the peculiar circum
stances and character of the individual " ? Thus
viewed, the passage furnishes evidence of Divine

192 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

guidance in those forms of expression which our
author adduces as arguments against it. The
history of the Church proves that the things wherein
the Apostle would have these Corinthians to know
they were left free by Christ belong to that class
in regard to which men would endeavour to bring
them under a yoke of bondage. They are, through
out, things which are in themselves indifferent, and
it is within this sphere that church rulers have
made some of their greatest assaults upon the
rights of the people of God. Knowing this before
hand, the omniscient Spirit provided an antidote
by the hand of His servant Paul, moving him to
record the fact that there were some things left to
be regulated by human prudence and the light of
nature, regarding which not even an Apostle might
essay to command or bind.

But the distinction in question does not, as our
author assumes, warrant the conclusion that Paul's
Apostolical judgment was to be considered a mere
private, unauthoritative opinion. The cases submitted
for his decision by the Church at Corinth embraced
points on which Christ had already decided, and
points on which no indication of the mind of the
Spirit had hitherto been given. The former the
Apostle refers to decisions already delivered by the
Lord, and upon the latter he gives, as the Prebend
ary himself expresses it, his own Apostolical judg
ment. That this judgment was a truly Apostolical

S TEA A' IXC PY rEKMISS/OX IMPLIES AUTHORITY. 193

judgment and authoritative on the points in question
appears (i) from the fact, that while the Apostle
says he does not speak " by commandment," he is
careful to say that he speaks " by permission."
No\v to speak " by permission " implies just what
verbal inspirationists contend for. lie who speaks
" by permission," has the authority of Him who
permits him, to speak what he is permitted to speak.
It does seem impossible that the Church at Corinth
could, in reading this reply to their letter, put any
other interpretation upon this expression than that,
in giving this judgment on these hitherto undecided
points, the Apostle had the permissive sanction of
the Holy Ghost. The idea cannot be entertained
for a moment that the Spirit of God would have
given (as the Apostle claims) permission to write
these permitted judgments to a Christian church, to
be placed on record for the Church in all time, if the
sentiments or judgments had not His sanction
as the most befitting for the occasion which had
given rise to the questions submitted for Apostolic
counsel. (2) At the close of the chapter where he
delivers judgment on a kindred subject, he adds :
" I think" (8o/cai} " also that I have the Spirit of God."
Now SOKW in the mouth of one who had Apostolic
credentials may be taken as a modest form of
expression carrying with it the very strongest
assertion of the judgment in question. It is true
that our author regards this passage as proving

194 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

that Paul " enforces his judgment with hesitation, as
though it might be influenced by the peculiarities of
his own mental temperament " ; but it is difficult to
reconcile this with his statement in the preceding
page, viz., " Several passages also make it certain
that he was capable of discriminating between those
utterances which were due to Divine enlightenment,
and those which were the result of his mere human
judgment" (p. 457). According to this latter aver
ment, it would seem that the Apostle was capable
of discriminating between his own mere human
judgments and the communications of the Spirit,
and that " several passages make this certain."
According to the former, however, he sometimes had
hesitation in deciding whether his judgment might
not " be influenced by the peculiarities of his own
mental temperament." Now as the very point about
which it is alleged the Apostle had this hesitation
was as to whether he had the Spirit of God or not,
it seems impossible to reconcile these two statements.
The one affirms what the other calls in question,
for in the one we are assured that the Apostle could
discriminate, while the other affirms that he hesi
tated to speak with confidence, where the point in
question was the very point on which, our author
acknowledges, he was able to discriminate.

Nor is this inconsistency the only objection to
which Mr. Row's statement regarding the hesitation
of the Apostle is exposed. The necessary tendency

TAIN IN OXE CASE, UNCERTAIN IN AIJ.. 195

of such a representation regarding the subjective
estate of the inspired writers, is to shake confidence
in their writings altogether as an authoritative rule
of faith or practice. If a sacred writer was doubtful
in an}- one case as to whether " his utterances were
due to Divine enlightenment" or "the result of his
mere human judgment," there is no guarantee that
he may not have erred in the interpretation of his
mental estates in other cases, and have ascribed to
the Holy Ghost utterances which were the offspring'
of his own imagination, " influenced by the pecu
liarities of his o\vn mental temperament." If the
writers of the sacred volume were not certain that
they possessed the Spirit of God in their formal
deliverances to the Church of God, there is no
warrant for regarding their deliverances as an
authoritative and infallible exhibition of the Divine
will.

In confirmation of his interpretation of the
Apostle's language in this instance, Mr. Row con
trasts it with Paul's style of speaking " elsewhere in
this same epistle" (p. 457): "If any man think
himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknow
ledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord" (i Cor. xiv. 37;. On
this argument two remarks may suffice, (i) Then-
is no warrant for restarting the expression, " tin-
commandments of the Lord," to particular portions
of tlv instruction" giver, i' Miis cpi.stle, save th<-

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

remarks made by the Apostle in the seventh chapter,
in which he discriminates between the command
ments of the Lord and his own judgment. The
insufficiency of this distinction as a warrant for our
author's conclusion, however, has been already shown.
In the instance mentioned in the seventh chapter,
the Apostle is speaking of a specific command of
our Lord's by which one of the cases appealed to
him for decision had been already settled. When
he says, therefore, that he had, or had not, a
command of the Lord in that chapter, he simply
means an antecedent deliverance deciding the point
at issue, and by no means teaches that for his own
judgments he had not the authority of Christ.

So far, indeed, is the passage (i Cor. xiv. 37)
from strengthening our author's argument, that when
fairly interpreted, it can be claimed as a proof text
on the other side. From an examination of the
context it will be seen, that the Apostle is correcting
abuses in the Church at Corinth which had arisen
in connection with the gift of tongues, and in doing
this, so far is he from having any hesitation about
his own judgment, or suspicions about his judgment
being " influenced by the peculiarities of his own
mental temperament," that he gives judgment upon
professed prophets who claimed to speak by the
Spirit of God. If the Apostle could claim Divine
authority for his judgments in regard to prophets
and in regard to other matters referred to in this

OHJEC TIOX FROM UXCER TA/XTY UNWARRANTED. 197

fourteenth chapter, much more, may it be inferred,
so far as the gravity of the points in question was
concerned, might he advance such claim for his
judgment in regard to matrimonial questions,
delivered in the seventh chapter. (2) It may be
remarked that even on the assumption that the
Apostle was uncertain about the character of his
own subjective estates on the particular occasion,
and knew not whether or not he had the authority
of the Spirit for his utterances, it would not follow
that he was not inspired to place this fact on record
as a warning to the Church not to regard what
might be merely a counsel as an authoritative com
mand.

In any event, therefore, and on any admissible
interpretation, the passage in question cannot be relied
on as furnishing, as our author and others imagine,
a conclusive argument against the doctrine of Verbal
Inspiration, but, on the contrary, when closely
examined, furnishes abundant evidence of a fore
thought beyond mere human sagacity in providing
for the protection of the members of the Church
against the arrogant assumptions of church rulers,
who would arise in the course of time, claiming for
themselves legislative functions, and desiring to bind
where Christ has left His people free. Such seems
to be the design of the Holy Spirit in moving the
Apostle to write as he has done, and to use the
language he has employed ; and the position taken

198 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

in regard to the points submitted to him for his
judgment, is precisely the same as that taken in
regard to meat in the eighth and ninth chapters of
this epistle, and in the fourteenth chapter of his
epistle to the Romans. Marriage, as well as meat,
comes under the class of the indifferent, and the
rule is the same in both cases. The only obligation
imposed in either case is, that our actions in such
matters be regulated by a due regard to the spiritual
\vell-being of ourselves and others and the glory of
Christ. Men are not bound to marry, but if they
marry, they should marry in the Lord ; neither are
men bound to eat flesh, but whether they eat or
drink, they arc bound to act for the glory of God.
Such is the will of Christ in all such matters, and,
as the passages in question constitute the ^fagna
CJiarta of the Church's liberties within this sphere,
it is most unreasonable to assume, as anti-verbalists
do, that the incidents which furnished the occasion
for uttering its provisions, or the language in which
they have been expressed, were determined by the
will of man. The Author of the Revelation, from
Genesis to the last book of the sacred Canon, pre
sided over the marvellous evolution, determining the
providential incidents which furnished the occasions
for His communications to men, and raising up and
qualifying His servants to utter, or record, His
messages at the times, and in the measures, and in
the terms, most suited to His sovereign good pleasure.

APOSTOLIC COUNSEL AND CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. 199

It is only by overlooking these fundamental
principles, so clearly revealed in Scripture, that
Christian apologists, of the class of Mr. Ro\v,
can be led to found objections to the doctrine of
a Verbal Inspiration on such passages as this. If
the utterance was of sufficient importance to demand
the interposition of a special providence to supply
the occasion for it, surely it is not too much to
claim that a special agency of the Spirit would be
vouchsafed in the determination of the form in
which it was to be placed on record for the instruc
tion of the Church in all the ages of her history.
If the incidents which gave rise to this epistle of
Paul to the Corinthians were designed, in the
providence of God, who worketh all things after
the counsel of His own will, to furnish an opportunity
for the issue of a Bill of Rights in defence of the
liberties of God's people, there can be no reason for
the allegation that the Apostle, in drafting it, and
delivering it, was hesitating as to whether he was
delivering, for the guidance of those who had invoked
his counsel, his own judgments influenced by his
o\vn peculiar temperament, or expressing the will
of the Holy Spirit on the all-important question
of Christian liberty.

LECTURE VIII.

INSPIRATION AND SCIENCE.

FT is objected to the doctrine of Verbal In-
•*• spiration that this doctrine is largely responsible
for the antagonism which exists between science
and Revelation. Referring for illustration to the
first chapter of Genesis, Mr. Row remarks : " One
point may, at all events, be considered settled, viz.,
that the meaning which the exigencies of a parti
cular theory of Inspiration naturally suggested is
in direct opposition to the scientific facts. It is
beyond question that the passage has produced a
very general belief that the entire created universe
was brought into its present form in a period of six
natural days. This is obviously the meaning which
would be attached to it by a reader unacquainted
with the facts of science" (p. 461). Here the
apparent opposition of the narrative of creation to
scientific facts is by the author laid at the door of
" a particular theory of Inspiration," by which we
are, doubtless, to understand the Verbal Inspiration
theory. It was that theory, or the exigencies of it,

VERBAL THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC SPECULATION. 201

which suggested the interpretation which has brought
about this unfortunate antagonism. But no sooner
has the Prebendary made this charge than lie pro
ceeds to furnish material for meeting it. He
immediately, in the very next sentence, adds: "But
it is no less certain that when the passage is closely
scrutinised, uninfluenced by any particular theory
as to the nature of Inspiration, it is capable of
bearing, without offering any violence to it, a
different interpretation." Xo\v it is respectfully
submitted that the author has here vindicated the
theory he had in the previous sentences assailed as
the fomcntcr of strife between Genesis and Science.
If the passage, "when closely scrutinised, is capable
of bearing, without offering any violence to it, a
different interpretation," it must be owing to the
peculiar felicity of the language in which it is
expressed. This, of course, is all one with saying
that the language of the passage does not, neces
sarily, teach the theory of the work of creation to
which the author objects. But, still further, he
draws attention on the next page " to the singular
fact that there arc two expressions in this chapter
which an evolutionist who believes in Theism might
accept as a popular exposition of his theory. The
first of these," he says, " occurs in the description
of the creation of the marine animals, and the
second in that of the land animals. In both cases
the creation is ascribed, not to an immediate, but to

202 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

a mediate agency," etc. From the fact that the
earth is commanded to produce the land animals
and the waters the marine animals, he draws the
inference that " it cannot be denied that as far as
the language goes, it is quite consistent with such
a theory of evolution as affirms that the Creator
has acted through a principle of this kind as the
intermediate agent in effecting His creative work."
What our author means when he speaks of " the
principle " of evolution as " the intermediate agent
in effecting the creative work " seems difficult to be
conceived. One could understand what is meant
by the principle on which an agent acts, but the
agency of a principle is an idea which passes all
comprehension. The author might as well speak,
as some do by implication, of the causality of a
law, as of the agency of a principle. Such looseness
of language in treating of scientific subjects has
wrought much confusion, and has proved a fruitful
source of great errors. It ought to be known by
all men, and it should be recognised as an un
challengeable truth by all scientists, that a law
cannot be a cause ; and, for a like reason, it ought
to be held as an unquestionable truth that a principle
cannot be an agent.

But even though it were conceded that the
author's theory of Evolution is true, it is difficult
to see how all this militates against the theory of
Verbal Inspiration. If the language of the narra-

SCIENCE AND THE FELICITY OF LANGUAGE. 203

tive is quite consistent with a thcistic evolution,
it must be the fault of the interpretation put
upon it, and not the fault of the theory of
Verbal Inspiration, that has brought about the
collision and conflict which our author deplores.
A verbal inspirationist, so far as his theory or its
exigencies demand, can go as far in reconciling the
language in question with a theistic evolution as
Mr. Row can, and feel that there is nothing in the
procedure inconsistent with his theory. And not
only so, but he can do what none but a verbal
inspirationist can do : he can tarry, as the points
of harmony between Scripture and any defensible
scientific theory are brought out, to admire the
wisdom by which the sacred writers were inspired
to employ language, in their account of the wonderful
works of God in the founding of the heavens and
the earth, and the stocking of the latter with plants
and animals, that is quite consistent with the findings
of science. As he docs so, his confidence in the
verbal theory will not suffer damage. lie will, on
the contrary, be confirmed in the conviction that no
writer in the days of Moses, nor even in the days
of the alleged final redactor, could, in the exercise
of his own unaided powers, have treated of such
themes without employing language utterly irre
concilable with the sciences of Astronomy and
Geology. And more than this : he will be led to
the conclusion that the harmony of the narrative

204 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OP INSPIRATION.

with the discoveries of all that science can claim to
have established, can be accounted for only on the
assumption of an inspiration of the Spirit of God
which extended to the determination of the language
in which the narration has been expressed.

It is true, our author does not hold that the
harmony is complete, for on pp. 463-4 he remarks
that " still, close as is the resemblance between
the geological record and this chapter, thus inter
preted, it must be candidly admitted that the
geological facts do not exactly correspond in all
their minute details with the events as they are
here narrated." Suffice it to say that this verdict
is altogether premature. No geologist is in a
position to give such a deliverance as this. The
state of this nascent science (for it is even yet but
nascent) docs not justify any one, whether scientist
or theologian, in asserting that the two records, the
Biblical and the geological, do not correspond. Mr.
Row charges the verbal theory with almost all the
evils arising out of the antagonism existing between
Science and Revelation, while the fact is, that these
evils arc largely chargeable upon those who are
trying to adjust the sacred narrative to the un
warrantable generalisations of an immature science,
for which some scientists and some theologians

claim all the authority and respectful deference
which belong to the exact sciences. As our author
admits, there is a wonderful consistency of language

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIONS MET /»')" rKOGKESS. 205

with fact, the lack of correspondence being limited
to minuter details, and it may be added that
apparent discrepancies between the inspired record
and the record of the rocks, which were once
deemed by some men to be beyond all possibility
of adjustment, have been satisfactorily reconciled.
Under these circumstances, no one is justified in
taking the position that apparent discrepancies now
current, or as yet unreconciled, shall continue to
defy all attempts at solution. We are not, by the
verbal theory, reduced to the necessity of accepting
the author's alternative, " to put a strain upon the
language of the chapter which it will not bear or
deny the scientific facts, or, if we can do neither,
abandon our belief in Christianity as a Divine
revelation." On the contrary, it is only by straining
ascertained scientific facts, or drawing upon the
scientific imagination, facetiously so called, for their
facts, as in the case of the Iluxleyian Hathybius,
that some scientists have managed, with the help
of some would-be scientific theologians, to produce
the impression reflected in Mr. Row's book, that
Science and Revelation arc in irreconcilable anta
gonism.

It is worthy of note that throughout his strictures
on "popular theories of Inspiration," our author has
confounded theories of Inspiration with particular
interpretations of Scripture. It is hardly necessary
to say that these two things arc not one and the

206 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

same thing. The historical fact is that theologians
differing as wide as the poles in their interpretation
of Scripture, have been at one regarding the doctrine
of Inspiration. No one nowadays needs to be
told that the Reformation symbols, especially those
of the Reformed Churches as distinguished from the
Lutheran, agreed with the Church of Rome on this
subject, teaching, as the Council of Trent does, the
doctrine of Verbal Inspiration in the strongest
possible terms.

A very extraordinary instance of this confusion of
thought on the part of our author occurs in connec
tion with his argument against Verbal Inspiration
and kindred doctrines of Inspiration, from the
antiquity of man (pp. 460 — 470). "According to
the popularly accepted theories of Inspiration," he
alleges, " the Scriptures are pledged to a system of
chronology which affirms that not more than about
seven thousand years can have elapsed since the
first creation of man, nor more than about five
thousand years since the Flood ; and any alleged
discoveries of science which prove that man has
existed on the earth for a longer period are conse
quently inconsistent with the claims of the Bible
to contain a Divine revelation."

In reply to this argument all that need be said is
that the doctrine condemned is not the result of
" popularly accepted theories of Inspiration," but
derived from conclusions reached by interpretations

VERBAL INSPIRATION— BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. 207

for which no one can claim the absolute and un
questionable authority of the inspired record. If
the Scriptures, cither by express statement or by
necessary consequence, taught that " not more than
seven thousand years can have elapsed since the
first creation of man," there might be some ground
for our author's objection to any theory of Inspira
tion which pledges the Holy Ghost to the language
of the record, and, indeed, to any theory of Inspira
tion which pledges Him to the record at all. As,
however, the Scriptures, fairly interpreted, fix neither
the antiquity of the universe nor the antiquity of
man, his charge is groundless, and his apology for
the Hiblc altogether gratuitous. The author himself,
in a footnote (p. 470), has indicated the material of
a satisfactory reply to his own argument. Referring
to the omission of names in the genealogical table
in the first chapter of the Gospel by Matthew, he
remarks that " this renders it highly probable that in
the genealogies of the Old Testament, especially in
those of remote times, other omissions, and extending
over far greater intervals of time, may have taken
place." Both the fact and the conjecture may be
conceded, and yet no case against Verbal Inspiration
(the theory singled out for condemnation in this
note, be made out. Matthew docs omit the names
specified, and the genealogies of the Old Testament,
as may be seen on inspection and comparison with
each other, make similar omissions. Hut what docs

208 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

all this prove as against the doctrine of Verbal
Inspiration ? It simply sustains the theory of
Biblical chronology, now entertained by some of the
most reverent Biblical critics, that the Bible does
not furnish sufficient data for a system of chrono
logy. Of course, if there were something affirmed
in these abridged genealogical tables that was not
true, there would be ground for even a much more
sweeping condemnation than our author has uttered,
but this cannot be shown. It is true that a charge
to this effect is made in the text of p. 470, where
our author draws attention to what he evidently
regards as a mistake, viz., that " a person whom he "
(Matthew) " designates as the son of another was in
reality his great grandson " ! This remark may well
shake one's confidence in the genealogical lore of
Mr. Row. Was Bartimreus mistaken when he
appealed to the mercy of Jesus of Nazareth, con
fessing Him to be the Son of David ? or was Christ
claiming by implication a genealogy to which He
had no right, when He silenced His adversaries by
the question, " If David in spirit call Him Lord, how
is He then his Son ? " Or was He mistaken in the
pedigree of Zaccheus when He recognised him as
" a son of Abraham " ? If it be an argument
against the accuracy of Matthew, that " he designates
as the son of another one who was in reality his
great grandson," what are we to think of the
accuracy of Christ Himself, who designates as " a

MATTIlEirs GENEALOGICAL TABLE. 209

son of Abraham " a man who did not come into
existence for at least two thousand years after
Abraham was dead ?

On this whole subject of Hebrew genealogy,
it may be regarded as an instructive fact,
that the Jewish chief priests and scribes — who
certainly knew as much about the principles on
which genealogical tables were wont to be con
structed as any modern critic can lay claim to, and
who had every reason, from their point of view and
their anti-Messianic policy, to challenge the slightest
flaw in the chain of our Saviour's descent — never
called in question this table of the first Evangelist.
Our author thinks that " the proper reply to all
difficulties of this kind is that we have no certainty
from an a priori or an a posteriori source, that the
writers of the Bible possessed a superhuman guidance
on subjects of this description ; and our duty," he
alleges, " is not merely to hold such opinions
secretly in our bosoms, but openly to announce and
act on them, in order that the many stumbling-
blocks which now endanger the faith of thousands
may be removed out of their way." The meaning
of this short and easy way of dealing with such
alleged discrepancies, of which the one charged
against the genealogical table in the Gospel by
Matthew may be regarded as a fair specimen, is
that they arc at once to be recognised as proving
that, " on subjects of this description," the writers of

210 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

the Bible possessed no superhuman guidance. And
let it be observed that this demand is made by a
writer, who had, on the very page on which he makes
it, given abundant evidence that he is utterly un
qualified to pronounce a judgment regarding the
case on which he bases his demand. Such criticism
may imagine that it is removing " stumbling-blocks
which endanger the faith of thousands," but the fact is,
it is conjuring up stumbling-blocks where none exist,
and is thus doing, so far as its influence goes, the very
thing it charges upon the advocates of Verbal In
spiration. Granting that there can be pointed out a
few petty discrepancies which have hitherto resisted
all attempts at adjustment, — and this is all that can
be said by any fair-minded critic, — is it reasonable to
demand, as Mr. Row does, that it should be at once
admitted that the solution of them is impossible, or
that the only righteous course is to confess that the
sacred writers possessed no " superhuman guidance
on subjects of this description"? A scientific criti
cism will not be in such unphilosophic haste to reach
its conclusions. It will say : " Other apparent dis
crepancies, which once seemed incapable of being
reconciled, have, nevertheless, yielded to better
information and riper scholarship, and remembering
this happy issue of patience and painstaking in the
past, it will wait with reverence for further enlighten
ment, in the full assurance that a more thorough
investigation will result in the vindication of the

SOCKCE OF ALLEGED DISCXEr.-LVC/ES. 211

Divine Record against the hasty, irreverent gene
ralizations of a Rationalistic Criticism."

In justification of this method of treating alleged,
or actual, discrepancies, our author himself may be
introduced as a witness. On pp. 4/2, 473,
speaking of " discrepancies which are alleged to
exist in the Gospels," he remarks : " These have
been magnified to an extent that is absurd. A large
number of them admit of an easy reconciliation
under the guidance of common sense. Others arise
from the fragmentary nature of the narrative and
our ignorance of the entire facts. Not a few of the
remainder o\ve their origin to the fact that the events
have been grouped in reference to the religious
purpose of the author rather than in the order of
strict historical sequence. Of a fe\v the reconcilia
tion is difficult. Of these the three-fold account of
the miracle at Jericho may be mentioned as an
example ; St. Matthew's Gospel affirming that two
blind men were cured, while it is the obvious
meaning of St. Mark's narrative that only one was
cured at the entrance of the city, and that of St.
Luke, that a single blind man was cured by our
Lord after lie had passed through the city. . . .
With respect to difficulties of this description (and
the}' arc very few) the best solution will be found
in the principle laid down by Ihitler, that it is
impossible to affirm that if the contents of the
Gospels were left to be handed down by tradition

212 SCRIPTURE DOCTR1XE OF INSPIRATION.

during the first thirty years of the existence of the
Church, inaccuracies may not have been introduced
in the process."

As Butler's principle has been antiquated by
recent Biblical scholarship, it cannot be accepted ;
and as it is conceded that the alleged discrepancies
are so few and unimportant, it is manifestly more
scholar-like, as it is certainly more reverent, to await
further enlightenment. It cannot, however, be con
ceded by any one acquainted with the relation of the
Apostles, who founded the Christian Church, to Christ,
on the one hand, and to His Church, on the other,
that " the contents of the Gospels were left to be
handed down by tradition during the first thirty years
of the existence of the Church." .On '-the contrary,
it has been demonstrated that the truths on which
the Church was founded, and by which she was fed,
were placed on record within the Apostolic period,
and that the books containing this record were
placed, by the Church of the Apostolic times, side by
side with the Old Testament Scriptures, and regarded
with the same reverence as the word of God. See our
author's argument from the Pauline epistles in this
same volume, Lect. vi., as summed up at p. 321,
together with " The New Testament Scriptures,"
by Dr. Charteris, Lect. iv.

No doubt, the three thousand converted by Peter's
sermon on the day of Pentecost were introduced to
the Church by oral instruction ; but, in the first

BUTLER'S SOLUTION INVALIDATED.

place, it was oral instruction communicated by
Inspiration ; and, in the second place, the oral
instruction was an oral exposition of the Old
Testament record. Under such tradition — a species
of tradition which prevailed throughout the Apostolic
period — there was no room left for the introduction
of the inaccuracies hypothecated in " the principle laid
down by Butler," so highly commended by our
author. The time singled out by Bishop Butler
as the period during which inaccuracies might have
crept in, viz., the first thirty years of the existence
of the Church, is the period of all others in which
such inaccuracies were sure to be corrected and
suppressed. The Apostles were very careful to
repress and rebuke the slightest departure from their
own oral or written instruction. No deviation
from what they had received by Revelation and
communicated by Inspiration was, for a moment,
tolerated. As soon as Paul hears of the divisions and
abuses which were disturbing the peace of the
Church at Corinth, and leading to the profanation of
the Lord's Supper, he recalls them, by an epistle, to
the standard of faith and purity as given in his
oral instructions. A reference to his lancuairc will

o t>

show that, as far as his influence reached [and it
was recognised, as Peter informs us (2 Peter iii. I 5,
1 6), throughout the Churches], there was no room
left for the corruption of Apostolic teaching in
" the first thirty years of the existence of the

2i4 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

Church." Referring to his original account of the
ordinance which had been so grossly abused by
these Corinthians, he says, " For I have received of
the Lord that which also I delivered unto you," etc.
(i Cor. xi. 23). Two remarks may be made on
this Apostolic admonition : — I. That the minuteness
with which it rehearses the original instruction proves
that Paul attached great importance to the language
employed ; 2. That in his day, which was certainly
within the period assigned for the possible corruption,
no departure from the simplicity and purity of
Gospel ordinances as instituted by Christ was per
mitted. His Epistle to the Galatians proves that
the position taken in regard to the Lord's Supper
was taken also in regard to the whole Gospel
(Gal. i. 8).

Nor was Paul singular in this rigid adherence
to Apostolic utterances as a prophylactic against
traditional corruptions. The language of Peter in
his second epistle, chapter second, shows the im
portance he attached to the preservation of the
Apostolic teaching in its pristine purity as the
ultimate standard of appeal. " This second epistle,
beloved, I now write unto you ; in both which
(at?) I stir up your pure minds by way of remem
brance ; that ye may be mindful of the words
which were spoken before by the prophets, and of
the commandment of us the Apostles of the Lord
and Saviour. Knowing this first, that there shall

77IE CANON COM PL E TED IN A POS TOL 1C PERIOD. 2 \ 5

come in the last days scoffers, walking after their
own lusts."

These Apostolic testimonies, placed on record
within the period of the alleged traditional cor
ruption, may suffice as a reply to all arguments,
whether analogical or critical, which proceed upon
the assumption that the Church, during the first
thirty years of her existence, was left to the
doctrinal uncertainty which must ever attach to
oral instruction handed down through the medium
of oral tradition. There is every reason to
believe that the Apostles, within this very period,
and prior to their" decease," as Peter puts it (2 Peter
i. i 5), took care to put in her hands, in writing,
the Gospel delivered at first orally, and largely
as comments upon, and expositions of, the Law,
the Prophets, and the Psalms. The very passage
in the introduction of the Gospel by Luke, upon
which our author endeavours to build an argument
against the verbal theory of Inspiration, may be
adduced in confirmation of this claim. His Gospel
was written, as he informs us, to correct accounts
given by some others of the things which had been
delivered to the Church by the Apostles. Taken
together with the instances already given, this
action of the Evangelist proves that the primitive
Church was not left to the uncertainties of oral
tradition.

Our author has used a very ungenerous cxprcs-

216 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

sion regarding those who are not ready to acknow
ledge as discrepancies what he is pleased to
pronounce such. He insinuates, pretty plainly, that
there are some who are conscious of the existence
of such discrepancies, who, nevertheless, do not
openly announce, and act on, their own convictions.
This is a style of representation very common in
the present day. The advocates of the doctrine of
conditional immortality, and the whole school of
eschatologists to which they belong, deal in such
insinuations, and endeavour to produce the impres
sion, that a vast body of ministers believe as they
do, but are afraid to confess the truth. In a word,
these subverters of the immemorial doctrine of the
Church, both in regard to the final doom of the
finally impenitent, and the relation of the sacred
record to the inspiring Spirit, wish to be regarded
as the only wise apologists, and the only critics and
theologians who can fairly lay claim to the grace of
Christian candour !

As regards the author's general position on the
question of Inspiration, it is simply that taken by
" the newer criticism," viz., that the Bible contains,
but is not, the word of God. Adapting Butler's
principle of an ad hominem against the deists, who,
though believing that the universe exhibits many im
perfections, yet hold that it is the work of God, he
takes the ground that, in like manner, there may be
imperfections in the Bible, and yet its claims to a

USE AXD ABUSE OF BUTLER'S ANALOGY. 217

Divine authorship be equally valid. He who recog
nises an imperfect universe as a work of God,
despite its imperfections, cannot consistently refuse
to accept the Bible as a Divine Revelation on the
ground of its imperfections. If the deist accepts
the revelation of God made in this imperfect
universe, with what show of consistency can he
reject the revelation of Him made in the Bible
because of the imperfections he finds therein ?

REMARKS ox THIS ANALOGICAL REASONING.

(i) It is perfectly conclusive as against deists.
Butler was dealing with deists, and in all disputa
tions with those who hold, as deists do, that the
universe is imperfect, and that, nevertheless, it
furnishes sufficient evidence of a Divine authorship,
the method adopted by him, in his Analogy, is all
that is needed to meet those objections which are
made against the sacred Scriptures on the ground
of their alleged imperfections.

(jj Touching the so-called imperfections of the
universe, it may be remarked that charges of this
kind against God's works arc as irreverent as they
are groundless. Such estimates of God's works arc
very different from that given by Himself at the
close of the creative week. Pronouncing, by antici
pation, a judgment of condemnation upon all such
critical profanation of His workmanship, He declared,
that " everything that He had made was very good "

218 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

— good exceedingly (Gen. i. 31). This, as the
passage referred to shows, is the Divine verdict after
a review of His works in all their teeming variety.
"And God saw (N*VV) ("looked at," "contemplated,"
" considered ") everything that He had made, and,
behold, it was very good." This one sentence
removes, at one stroke, the entire basis of all that
our author has attempted to found on the analogical
reasoning of Butler. God's estimate of His own work,
after an omniscient scrutiny which took in its every
department with all that it embraced, furnishes a
sufficient reply, and ought to be regarded as a very
emphatic rebuke to those who presume to charge
with imperfection the productions of His wisdom
and power wherewith He has filled to repletion this
wondrous universe.

(3) The alleged imperfections of God's works
in nature are gradually disappearing with the
progress of science. It is becoming more and more
manifest that the correlation and interdependence of
the several parts of creation, are not limited to the
magnitudes and motions of the orbs of heaven. The
doctrine is gaining credence, very rapidly, that these
mutual relationships extend throughout the entire
range of the organic and inorganic worlds. It is
only such scientists as Moleschott and Haeckel,
and such philosophers as Herbert Spencer and John
Stuart Mill, who, in order to overthrow the teleolo-
gical argument, endeavour to point out such imper-

SCIENCE I ROVES PERFECTION OF GOD'S \\'ORKS. 219

factions as our author assumes. Against the assump
tions of these foes of teleology it is satisfactory to be
able to adduce the testimony of a scientist, who is
quite the peer of any of them as a physical investi
gator, who, although he holds with them in their
opposition to the telcological argument, neverthe
less has the candour to confess, as he does in his
" Fragments of Science" (vol. i. p. 72), that "nature
is not an aggregate of independent parts, but an
organic whole," and that there is nothing in it
existing out of relation, that all its parts are but the
elements of a unity to whose perfection each, in its
measure, furnishes its contribution. In a word, as
Ilumboldt has demonstrated in his " Kosmos,"
" nature considered rationally, that is to say sub
mitted to the process of thought, is a unity in diver-
sit}- of phenomena ; a harmony, blending together
all created things, however dissimilar in form and
attributes ; one great whole (TO TTO.V), animated " (as
he adds in a semi-pantheistic strain) " by the breath
of life." (Introduction, pp. 2, 3.)

(4) These unquestionable, scientific testimonies,
arc sufficient to show the unwisdom of basing
theories of Inspiration, as our author has done,
upon such unscientific criticisms of God's works
as charge them with imperfection. These criticisms
of the works of God do violence to the very
principle laid down by Butler, on which our author
founds. They assume, on the part of the critics,

the capacity to judge ^ priori how Uod should
have created tho universe, and what UN aim in
creating it was ; atul hence undertake to determine
whether the individual portions of it, which come
under human obsoivation. arc suitable elements in
the great aggregate of moans tor the attainment
of this antecedent design. These aie veiv large
assumptions, atul they are as unwarrantable as they
are Kuge. No one is in a position to judge of
the perfection or the imperfection of the parts,
who Joes not comprehend the whole ; and as no
finite mind can comprehend the Infinite Worker
ot His work, no otder of created intelligence is
in a position to prefer again^t any part ot His
work the charge of imperfection. Butler's general
principle is perfectly valid, and the position assumed
b\- him altogether unchallengeable. It is perfectly
tiue that wo are incompetent to judge, Ct frtcrs,
what should be the contents of a Pivino Revelation,
or in what terms it should be communicated. This
were nothing less than to forecast the mysteries
of Redemption. On both these points the Revela
tion itself is at one with Butler. It agrees
with him regarding, the former, for it declares
that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor heart
conceived the things that iiod hath prepared for
them that love Him; and it agrees with him in
regard to the latter, for it informs us that these
undiscoverable truths arc given. 'v not in the words

INFERENCE I- ROM SOLUTION OF DISCREPANCIES. 221

which man's wisdom tcachcth, but in the words
which the Holy Ghost tcacheth." But Butler has
no warrant for proceeding farther and assuming
that this principle covers the case of an imperfectly
recorded Revelation. The imperfections wherewith
>in has marred the work of creation, can never be
accepted as furnishing an analogy for the alleged
imperfections ascribed to the Revelation wherein
is unfolded the remedial economy. As will be
shown immediately, the argument proceeds upon
the assumption that there is no difference between
God's agency in creation and His agency in pro
vidence.

(5) It has been shown already, and has been
admitted by the author, that the alleged dis
crepancies are very few and unimportant, and that
many of them admit of reconciliation. The course
suggested by this state of the case is obvious.
Instead of drawing the hasty and unwarrantable
conclusion that the remaining discrepancies, hitherto
unreconciled, arc irreconcilable, and belong to the
text as it came from the hands of men who spake
and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,
it is the part of wisdom to tarry for further light.
This is not the counsel of an <i priori abstract
theory. On the contrary, it is the obvious result
of a genuine, critical investigation, which has solved
so many critical problems in the past, and has
shown that the obstacles they presented in the way

222 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

of the theory of Verbal Inspiration, can be removed
without doing violence to the language of the sacred
text. Surely, where the alternative is a probable
solution, or an acknowledgment of imperfection
in the Inspired Record, no one possessing that
spirit of reverence which should characterise the
Biblical critic, can hesitate as to the choice he will
make. Never, until it has been shown (which
never can be shown) that the discrepancy existed
in the inspired autograph as it came from the hand
of the inspired writer, will any reverent Biblical
critic accept the conclusion that the Holy Scriptures,
as they took form under the afflatus of the Inspiring
Spirit, were marred on the wheel of the human
agency. The opponents of the verbal theory have
a much harder task to accomplish than to prove
that there are imperfections in the sacred text, as
it now stands. Proving this, even though they
succeeded, they have still before them the impossible
task of proving that such imperfections existed in
the original autographs. This is a critical achieve
ment beyond the possibilities of critical science, as
the autographs are not to be found.

It has been urged by the opponents of Verbal
Inspiration, that one may as well admit the
existence of imperfections in the autographs of
Scripture as in the apographs, or in our present
manuscripts. It is argued that, if God could
permit the Revelation to be marred in the trans-

GOD MAY PERMIT WHAT HE MAY NOT DO. 223

mission from generation to generation, there is no
reason why He might not have permitted it to be
marred at the outset. If an imperfect text can
communicate the Divine will to men now, why
may not that will have been made known at first
through a like imperfect medium ? The answer
to such reasoning is not far to seek. Take the
parallel case of the creation of man. Will any one
venture to say, that as God permitted man by his
disobedience to mar the Divine image in which
he was created, He might have brought him into
existence in an estate of moral imperfection ? Even
Pelagians go no farther in this matter than to
teach that man was created in an estate of moral
equilibrium, without bias towards either good or
evil. None save the advocates of the doctrine of
occasional causes, or absolute necessitarians, venture
to charge man's moral imperfections, or positive
depravity, upon the Author of man's nature. All
who possess Scriptural views of the holiness of God,
and cherish towards Him those feelings of reverence
which His character should inspire in the minds
of all holy intelligences, turn away, instinctively,
from the thought of connecting Him, causally, with
the origin of evil in cither men or angels. It is
held as an unquestionable truth by all right-minded
men, that God may permit what He may not do.
And as it has been in the creation of man and
the permission of him to fall from the estate wherein

224 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

he was created, so has it been in the production of
the sacred text and its subsequent marring through
the agency of man. As God, in the creation of
man, breathed into his nostrils the breath of a
perfect moral life, so did He, in the production of
the sacred oracles, breathe into agents, providentially
fitted for the parts assigned them, the breath of a
perfect inspiration. As the Divine agency extended
to the production of the record, we cannot, without
ascribing imperfection to the Divine Agent, who was
the Holy Ghost, speak of that record as originally
imperfect. Having furnished by His immediate
Inspiration a perfect record, as by creation He had
produced a perfect man, He could, without impeach
ment, permit the custodians of the record, as He
had permitted the custodian of the moral life, to
mar His original workmanship. If it is admissible,
as Butler assumes, and as Mr. Row allows, to argue
from analogy in dealing with the subject of Inspira
tion, here is the analogue historically presented.
The analogue, as given by Butler and accepted by
Row (and stated correctly and urged conclusively
as against a deist), is not the original workmanship
of God, but God's workmanship marred by the sin
of man. This is a fatal flaw in their analogical
argument as applied to the doctrine of Inspiration,
for it has led them to ascribe to the direct agency
of God what was due to the agency of man.
Correctly stated, the analogy holds in every point ;

A CRATi'ITOUS CONCESSION TO MR. MILL. 225

and the argument proceeds from God's works of
creation and providence in the one case, to His
works of creation and providence in the other, and
not from the vicious and false analogy of a work
of providence to a creative work.

Before passing from this point, it may not be out
of place to notice Mr. Row's concession in regard to
the conclusivcncss of Mr. Mill's anti-teleological
reasoning. On p. 449 he says : " These conclusions
arc inevitable if we admit the truth of the premises.
Mr. Mill has urged them in his posthumous essays
with unsparing logic. The only mode of escaping
from the inference which he draws is one which will
be accepted by ever}' thcist, namely, by denying the
validity of his assumption that the impress of
perfection must of necessity be stamped on all the
works of a perfect creation." The reasoning to
which this concession is made, as given by the
author, is as follows : " It is unquestionable that the
present moral order of the universe is not a perfect
manifestation of this attribute " (the attribute of
justice). "Hence it is inferred that the Being who
has made it, must be imperfect cither in justice, in
wisdom, or in power." Such is the author's estimate
of this argument that he sees no mode of escape but
by denying the validity of what it assumes, viz.,
that " the impress of perfection must of necessity
be stamped on all the works of a perfect Creator."

It is respectfully submitted that theism is not

226 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

driven, by the force of Mr. Mill's logic, to accept
his three-horned dilemma as presenting the only
alternative open to it. If our author had not, at
this stage, forgotten the lessons taught him by his
Butler, he would not have thought of making any
such concession to such irreverent and crude reason
ing. He would, on the contrary, have replied, with
the author of the "Analogy," (i) that the constitution
and course of nature are but parts of a moral scheme
as yet but partially revealed, and (2) that even in
these initial steps of its manifestation, it reveals a
moral Governor who is perfectly just.

6. It is very often alleged in objection to the
doctrine of Verbal Inspiration, that the sacred writers
do not claim such a degree of Divine assistance.
Mr. Row goes even farther, and puts this objection
in the form of an absolute disclaimer of any such
aid. On p. 452 he says, "Surely nothing is more
absurd than on mere abstract principles to attribute
to the writer of a book of Scripture such a degree of
Divine assistance as he himself apparently disclaims.
Let us take an illustration," he proceeds, "from St.
Luke's Gospel. If the Verbal or Mechanical theory,
or any of its modifications, is correct, every word in
this Gospel must be the dictation of the Divine
Spirit. Yet in the preface the information as to
the sources whence the author received his materials
is of a most definite character. He tells us that he
instituted a careful investigation into the truth of

INSPIRATION WITH REVELATION. 227

the facts which he has narrated ; and that, while
he was not an eye-witness of them himself, he has
compiled his narrative from the testimony of those
that were ; and he adds that the purpose he had
in view was that his readers might know the certainty
of the things in which they had been instructed.
Yet, notwithstanding these affirmations, the exigencies
of theory have induced persons to affirm that the
contents of this Gospel were dictated by the Divine
Spirit."

Whatever our author may have failed to establish
by this reference to the Gospel by Luke, he has
succeeded in demonstrating his own misconception
of the question under discussion. Granting him all
that he assumes in regard to the way in which he
alleges Luke came by his information, it will not
follow, as he thinks, that the advocates of Verbal
Inspiration must abandon their theory as inapplicable
to the composition of Luke's Gospel. In arriving
at this conclusion, he has fallen once more into an
error which has greatly marred his book. He has
confounded Revelation with Inspiration, the influx
of the things of which Luke testifies into his own
mind, with the efflux of the narration as projected
by him upon the sacred page for the instruction of
others. It is needless to say that this mistake
vitiates and nullifies our author's argument. Even
though he had proved that Luke had acquired all
the information he has placed on record in the same

228 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

way as ordinary historians acquire their knowledge,
he would not have touched the subject he professes
to treat. All this might be true, and yet Luke,
thus put in possession of the requisite information,
may have been divinely determined in the selection,
disposition, and expression of the matters he under
took to certify to the most potent Theophilus.

But one of the strangest of the many strange
features of our author's critique on the verbal theory
is the concession he makes (p. 452) regarding the aid
this Evangelist may have received in his inquiries.
"I full}- admit," he says, "that there is nothing in his
assertions inconsistent with the idea that the author
was possessed of one or more of the supernatural
endowments referred to in the Pauline epistles, as
extensively bestowed on the members of the Apos
tolic Church, and which may have aided him in his
inquiries and imparted additional strength to his
natural faculties ; but it is plain that it cannot have
been of such a nature as to have superseded their
use or rendered human sources of information
unnecessary." It will be seen at once that the
subject here discussed by the author is not Inspira
tion at all, but Revelation ; and it will also be seen
that, even in this process, he admits a certain, or
rather an uncertain, degree of Divine assistance,
imparting " additional strength " to the Evangelist's
"natural faculties" — an expression which may mean
much or little as the author or his readers may list.

lUl'IXE AID IN ACQUISITION CONCEDE I\ 229

Two questions here very naturally suggest them
selves, i. If such Divine assistance was granted to
Luke in the collection of the material of his future
Gospel, is it not very likely that it would have been
extended to him in the recording of the information
he had been strengthened to acquire ? As the
collection was but the first step in a process intended,
not simply for the information of Luke himself, but
chiefly and preeminently for the information of
Theophilus and others, surely it is but reasonable
to conclude, that the final step upon which " the
certainty" of the "communication of that informa
tion accurately depended, would not be left to the
unaided natural powers of the human agent. 2. As
there is no reason to believe that our author holds
that the Divine aid ended with the process of
inquiry into the " human sources of information,"
the only question remaining is as to the extent to
which this Divine aid reached in the framing of the
record. On this point there does not seem to be
much room for debate left to those who go the
length to which our author has gone in the forc-
coin^; concession of Divine aid. As already stated,

the design of the assistance rendered in both cases —
in the collection of the material and the record of
it — ought to put an end to the discussion. He
who began the good work of the collection, and
wrought in the Apostle, as our author seems to
admit, both to will and to do according to His own

230 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

good pleasure, is one who is not in the habit of
initiating a work and then abandoning it, or com
mitting it to weak erring mortals to carry on to
completion. The whole analogy of the faith is
against the adoption of any such conclusion.

But our author has not only erred in confounding
Revelation with Inspiration : he has also fallen
again into a misconception in regard to the verbal
theory of Inspiration, which may be justly said to
characterise all he has written against that doctrine.
lie has confounded it here, as he has done all
along, with the theory of dictation, and also with
what is called the mechanical theory. He repre
sents the theory he is opposing as teaching that the
contents of this Gospel were dictated to Luke by
the Divine Spirit, and that the aid he received was
of such a nature as to supersede the use of his
natural faculties. As has been already shown, the
verbal theory neither teaches, nor implies, either of
these doctrines of the Spirit's action on the minds
of the sacred writers. All that is essential to it is,
that the agency of the Spirit extended to the form
of the utterance, or of the record, and determined
the language employed in both cases. This is the
true verbal theory, and it is all its advocates under
take to defend, as it is the position their opponents
have to assail.

It is scarcely necessary to point out that there is
nothing gained in attacking this position by framing

SCPER.VATUKAL STRENGTHENING CONCEDED. 231

arguments against the theory of dictation or the
mechanical theory. The advocates of the verbal
theory do not, as has been already shown, undertake
to solve the mystery of the Spirit's operation in
determining the language employed by the subjects
of His Inspiration. In this, however, they are not
singular. Our author will find it as difficult to solve
the mystery of those supernatural endowments by
which he acknowledges additional strength was im
parted to Luke's natural faculties. If, as the above
statement implies, the natural powers of the mind can
be supernaturally strengthened, one may reasonably
conclude that the faculty of speech, man's noblest
faculty, may be supernaturally strengthened ; and if
this be a reasonable conclusion, it would seem to be
anything but reasonable to say, that this faculty,
supernaturally strengthened, might not be enabled to
select, and give utterance to, the very words the
inspiring Spirit designed to employ. One would like
to know on what principle our author proceeds in
determining the extent to which the supernatural
strengthening reached, or how he has ascertained that
it had to do only with the Evangelist's " inquiries,"
and not with the utterance or record of the result
of his " inquiries " ; or, if it had to do with the
utterance or record at all, how he has made the
discovery that it stopped short of determining the
form and language employed. Before he has satisfied
his own intelligence on these points, he will likely

232 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

begin to suspect that his theory of a Partial or
"functional" Inspiration (pp. 432-3) is beset with
as many difficulties as that of a Plenary Verbal
Inspiration. He will very probably find out that
before he can place a limit to the inspiring agency
of the Spirit, he must needs possess an acquaintance
with the operation and mind of the Spirit in this
mysterious work, which no one, apart from a special
Revelation, can claim. He will discover that he
has fallen into the very error he has charged upon
the advocates of the verbal theory, viz., of erecting
his theory of limitation upon merely a priori prin
ciples — these principles, as disclosed in his argument,
being (i) that the Spirit could not inspire the sacred
writers verbally without dictating to them the words,
and (2) that He could not determine them in regard
to the form, or phraseology of the utterance, or the
record, without reducing them to the rank of mere
machines. It is needless to say that these are
mere a priori assumptions, and it is equally un
necessary to show over again, what has been proved
so often in the course of this discussion, that these
assumptions are irreconcilable with the doctrine of
the Spirit's agency in the regeneration and sancti-
fication of the souls of men.

LECTURE IX.

OBJECTION FROM FRKKDOM OF REFERENCE TO
O\A) TESTAMENT SCRIITURES.

A NOT HER very common objection is thus stated
•**• by Mr. Row, p. 454: — l< If one tiling connected
with this subject is more certain than another, it is
that the mode in which the Old Testament Scriptures
arc referred to and quoted in the New, is fatal to
all theories of mechanical or verbal inspiration."
Of the " various theories propounded for the
purpose," as he very charitably alleges, " of evading
this difficulty," our author selects only one, which
ascribes such variations from the Old Testament
text to corruptions which have crept into it. This,
he says, is a mere assumption, and creates fur greater
difficulties than it would solve. His reason for
rejecting this theory is that, " if true, it would shake
our confidence in the text of the Old Testament to
its centre," inasmuch as " if errors have crept into
the Old Testament to the extent to which they must
have done in the instances in question, it follows
that an equal amount of error must be diffused over

234 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

the entire volume of which these quotations form but
a small portion."

On this critique let two remarks suffice. i. That
our author's inference has no foundation in the
theory. He alleges that the charge of corruption
of the text of " the Old Testament in the instances
in question " involves a like charge against " the
entire volume of which these quotations form but
a small portion " ! It is needless to say that no
Biblical critic will accept this inference as a canon
of criticism. Will any critic venture to say that
interpolations which have been introduced in the
text of the New Testament warrant a general
charge of corruption against " the entire volume of
which they form but a small portion " ? Without
entering upon the merits of this mode of solving
the problem presented in this method of quoting
the Old Testament Scriptures by New Testament
writers, it is quite enough to say in reply to our
author's sole attempt at argument on the point,
that it is simply a non-sequitur, involving a prin
ciple which no critic would for a moment think of
accepting. 2. It may be remarked, that Mr. Row
has, very singularly, selected that mode of solution
which very few apologists have adopted, and passed
over those other solutions which are chiefly relied
on by the ablest apologists of the age. What his
reasons were for adopting this course, it is difficult
to imagine. As he has not found room for them,

ARGUMENT FROM INACCURATE QUOTATION. 235

it rrny not be out of place to give one or two
examples.

(i) One way of meeting this objection is to point
to the parallel case of our mode of quoting the
Scriptures of both Testaments. Accurate quotation
of Scripture is a very uncommon virtue. At least,
inaccurate quotation is exceedingly common, even
among those who are most firm believers in the
doctrine of Verbal Inspiration. Now, if our author's
argument be valid, one would be justified in the
inference that verbal-inspirationists, who do not
quote verbatim, do not believe their own doctrine.
As a matter of fact, however, they do believe the
Scriptures to be verbally inspired, and yet do not
feel that they are acting at all inconsistently so long
as they express the sense of the passages quoted.
It is, therefore, not by the accuracy, or inaccuracy,
with which the Scriptures are referred to and quoted
by any writer or speaker of the present day, that
we are to ascertain his views regarding the inspira
tion of the sacred writers. And, in like manner, it
is not, simply, by their mode of reference and quota
tion we arc to discover the views of the New Testa
ment writers in regard to the inspiration of the men
who wrote the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
The only proper course, in cither case, is to judge of
a man's views from his own avowal of them. As
the New Testament writers have, in almost every
possible way, testified their faith in the verbal

236 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures, it
would be as unfair, as it is unreasonable, to set
aside this testimony borne by themselves regarding
their own views, and come to a directly opposite
conclusion by strained inference from apparent in
consistency in their mode of reference and quotation.
(2) To this objection another reply, of which our
author takes no notice, is, that the New Testament
writers often vary the language of the passages
they quote from the Old, in order to give an
authoritative interpretation of them. Such variation
from the original text for exegetical purposes fur
nishes no ground for the inference that the authors
of the variation did not believe in the Plenary
Verbal Inspiration of the passages to which they
refer. On the contrary, the variation is just what
one might expect under the circumstances in which
the New Testament writers were placed. They
were the chosen and inspired interpreters of the
Old Testament Revelation, commissioned by Him
whose Spirit moved the Prophets of the olden
dispensation to speak and write. Standing in such
relation to that former record of the mysteries of
Redemption, it had been passing strange if, in
referring to it, they had found it so clear as to need
no explanation, and had, therefore, given the ancient
text in every instance verbatim as they found it.
It is true, they might have given the sacred text as
it stood, and then have added their own explanatory

FREEDOM OF THE SPIRIT AS AN AUTHOR.

comments ; but in this, as in other matters, the
Apostolic admonition may not be out of place for
those who would prescribe rules for men acting
under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit.
" For who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or
who hath been His counsellor?" (Rom. xi. 34.)
Inspired by the free Spirit, and enlightened with
the light of a clearer Revelation, they reveal that
freedom wherewith the indwelling Spirit, by the
very fulness of His inhabitation, has made them
free, and quote from the Scptuagint where it differs
from the Hebrew, and from the Hebrew where it
differs from the Septuagint, and often cite a passage
in a form in which it is not found in either the
Hebrew or the Greek. In moving the New Testa
ment writers to deal in this manner with the Old
Testament, the Spirit, who is the Author of both the
New Testament Revelation and the Old, was but
asserting His own authority, while lie was acting in
conformity with a law of authorship which no one
ever thinks of questioning as applied to uninspired
writers. No one ever holds an author bound,
when reiterating a statement, to keep by the exact
phraseology of the first utterance of it. Surely, if
such license is given to man, and is considered
almost the birthright of human authorship, it is as
irreverent as it is unreasonable to abridge, by such
limitations as the objectors would impose, the liberty
of the Spirit of the Lord. In the exercise of this

238 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

liberty He has shown Himself to be the same
inspiring agent who wrought in the Prophets of the
olden time, and who moved Moses, in reiterating
the laws of the economy he was commissioned to
inaugurate, to vary the language in which they
were enunciated, according to time, and place, and
circumstance. So prominent is this feature of the
Spirit's authorship in the Book of Deuteronomy,
that some critics, who will not grant the Holy
Ghost the literary license which they demand for
themselves, have drawn from it arguments against
the unity of the Mosaic legislation, and have endea
voured to argue diversity of authorship from diversity
of code, distributing, as the particular critic may list,
the authorship among a series of redactors, and
reserving to Moses scarcely any part of the record,
save the Ten Words of the Moral Law.

GENERAL REMARKS UPON THE FOREGOING
OBJECTIONS.

This review of these objections, which are those
most commonly urged against the doctrine of Verbal
Inspiration, warrants the following remarks : —

i. They are, in almost every instance, based
upon misconceptions of that doctrine, and are shown
to be utterly groundless and pointless as soon as
the doctrine is fairly stated. 2. In many instances,
the theories of the objectors are liable to the same

GENERAL REMARKS. 239

objections. 3. While professing to proceed upon
the inductive method, the anti-verbal theorists
restrict their induction, almost exclusively, to appa
rent discrepancies, and leave out of view altogether,
or try to explain away, the express statements of
the sacred writers in which the claim of an inspira
tion extending to the form and language of the
record, is unequivocally asserted. 4. This method
of theorising, which is the most fruitful source of
objections to the Scripture doctrine of Inspiration,
is manifestly most unphilosophical and unscientific.
No philosopher or scientist ever thinks of beginning
his investigation of any subject by an examination
of the objections which may be urged against the
doctrine propounded for his acceptance. On the
contrary, his first question is : On what evidence is
this theory or hypothesis based ? Having examined
the evidence, he is in a position to judge of and
estimate the force of the objections. And if the
evidence is such as to satisfy him of the truth of
the hypothesis, he will not abandon it because of
his inability to meet all the objections which may
be brought against it, so long as the facts on which
it is based are unchallengeable, veritable facts, and
so long as the objectors cannot show that the
theory has not been fairly and logically deduced
from a fair and legitimate interpretation of them.
In this conclusion and resolve he will be further
strengthened when he finds that the rejection of

240 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

the doctrine objected against must involve the
objector in as great difficulties as those wherewith
it is alleged the doctrine in question is alone beset.
All this applies with peculiar force to the case in
hand, for the facts on which the verbal theory of
Inspiration is founded are not, like the facts of
nature, unexpounded phenomena, requiring a
Newton or a Kepler to give them voice and utter
ance. They are chiefly express, formal statements,
in which the mind of the Spirit is unequivocally
delivered in regard to the very question under
investigation. From these utterances the advocates
of the verbal theory have deduced their doctrine,
while their opponents utterly ignore, or positively
discard, this class of facts, and frame their theories
of a Partial inspiration, or of no inspiration at all,
upon the basis of alleged discrepancies, most of
which have been triumphantly reconciled. For the
sake of the men who advocate such views, as well
as for the truth's sake, it is necessary to make patent
the shallow, unphilosophical, and unscientific charac
ter of such speculations. Writers of this class are
ever boasting of their strict adherence to the
principles of science and philosophy, and are most
persistent in their representations of the Verbal
theory as unphilosophic and unscientific. Of course,
it must be assumed that they believe what they say ;
but it is manifest, on the slightest reflection, that
they can entertain such views of their own theories

AXTI-VERBAL METHOD UNPUJLOSOPI/fCAL. 241

and of the Verbal theory only by losing sight of,
or violating the first principles of a philosophic
and scientific investigation of the subject they
profess to treat. Denouncing all a priori specula
tions, they claim that theirs alone is the true
inductive method ; and yet they leave out of their
induction the determining facts on which the whole
issue depends.

In support of this charge reference may be
made again to Prebendary Row's book (pp. 454-5).
" The most important passages in the New Testa
ment," he writes, " bearing on this question are our
Lord's promises to Mis followers of such super
natural enlightenment as was necessary to qualify
them for propagating His religion and founding
His Church. That He promised them a super
natural assistance fully adequate to enable them
to accomplish this work is expressly affirmed ; but
nowhere does He define its nature or extent. His
three most definite promises are — first, that the
Divine ' Spirit should guide them/ not into all
truth generally, but into all the truth, which the
context plainly limits to religious truth. A second
assures them that the Spirit should teach them all
things, and refresh their memories as to His utter
ances, a third that He would impart to them a
knowledge of the future. There is yet one more,
but it has no bearing on the present question, viz
that when they would be summoned before the

242 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

established tribunals, the Spirit would suggest to
them the proper materials for their defence."

Such is the author's induction of what he desig
nates " the most important passages in the New
Testament bearing on this question " ! The whole
territory traversed is embraced within five verses
contained in three chapters of the Gospel by John
(chaps, xiv. 26; xv. 26, 27; xvi. 13, 14).

REMARKS ON THIS INDUCTION.

1. On the very face of it, there is evidence of its
utter inadequacy as an induction of " the most
important passages in the New Testament bearing
on this question." No one acquainted with the
New Testament Scriptures can accept these five
verses, selected from these three chapters of the
Gospel by John, as a full exhibition of " the most
important passages of the New Testament bearing
on this subject."

2. On the next page, our author varies his state
ment regarding the comprehension of these passages,
and instead of alleging that they are " the most
important passages in the New Testament bearing
on this question," he says that " these constitute the
whole of our Lord's promises on the subject."
Under either representation, the induction must be
pronounced defective. It does not embrace " the
most important passages in the New Testament
bearing on this question," nor does it embrace " the

/XSTAXCE OF A Dl-FECTll'E INDUCTION. 243

whole of our Lord's promises on the subject."
Enough has been said already on the former point
to sho\v, that the materials from which a scientific
induction must be drawn are scattered broadcast
over the whole New Testament, and embrace the
personal characteristics and natural weakness and
incapacity of the men to whom the writing of the
New Testament was committed and their own
views regarding the nature and extent of the agency
of the Spirit who moved and guided them in the
execution of their mighty task. With regard to
the latter, our Lord's promises quoted from the
Gospel by John, which were given on the night of
His betrayal, are to be implemented by that "most
important" promise made by Him after His resur
rection, and immediately preceding His ascension,
viz., " Behold, I send the promise of My Father
upon you : but tarry yc in the city of Jerusalem,
until yc be endued with power from on high "
(Luke xxiv. 49).

3. These promises of our Lord, thus enlarged
beyond our author's enumeration, arc to be inter
preted, not as our author has done, by a priori
conceptions of their nature and extent, limiting
them to " religious truth," and expounding them so
as to leave the Evangelists largely to themselves
in their statements of facts and historical incidents
which were to mirror forth the character and work
of the Redeemer to His Church through all ages

244 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

but arc, on the contrary, to be interpreted in the
light of the anointing wherewith Christ was anointed
for the execution of His prophetic functions ere He
entered upon them, and in the light shed upon them
by their fulfilment on the day of Pentecost, and in
the light shed upon them by the claims of the men
in whom they were fulfilled, and in the light shed
upon them by the necessities of the case. No one
has any warrant for pursuing any other method in
dealing with such promises ; and he who will adopt
this method will not only conclude that the Verbal
theory is the only one competent to account for the
phenomena to be explained, but will be surprised
that any one, competent to form an opinion in the
case, would ever think of accepting any form of the
theory of a Partial Inspiration as furnishing an
adequate solution of the mystery presented in the
production of the Gospels and Epistles and other
New Testament writings by the agency of the
Apostles and Evangelists. The wonders of the day
of Pentecost place the promises cited by our author,
and the additional one mentioned above, outside the
pale of conjectural exegesis, and demonstrate, as far
as moral evidence can demonstrate anything, the
truth of the Verbal theory of Inspiration, as on any
fair interpretation they disprove all forms of the
theory of a Partial Inspiration. Judging of the
promises of our Lord to send the Holy Ghost by
His fulfilment of those promises on the day of

ARGUMENT FROM PE. \TI-.COSTA I. GIFTS. 245

Pentecost, there is no alternative left to those who
accept the narrative of the events of that day but to
regard those promises as guaranteeing an inspiration
extending to the language of the message the
Apostles \verc commissioned to deliver. There can
be no doubt that the Apostles themselves regarded
the gift of tongues as the fulfilment of Christ's
promise to send the Holy Ghost upon them from
the Father, and to endue them with power from on
high ; for the Apostle Peter says so in language
which admits of no other interpretation. He refers
what the astonished multitude saw and heard to
the fact that Christ, who had been exalted by the
right hand of God, had received of the Father the
promise of the Holy Ghost, and had shed forth that
unspeakable gift upon His servants. Of course, it
is needless to add, that the gift of tongues carries
with it the whole doctrine of Verbal Inspiration ; for
the essence of such a gift is that it enables the
subject of it to use words which he could not
otherwise have used, not only communicating to
him a vocabulary hitherto unknown to him, but
enabling him to employ it in the communication of
his thoughts to others.

4. The passage which our author erases from the
brief catalogue he has furnished, on the ground, as
he alleges, that it lias no bearing on the present
question, cannot be allowed to be so quietly set
aside from this service. The passage referred to

246 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

is as follows : " But when they deliver you up,
take no thought how" (ira)<;) "or what" (rt) aye shall
speak ; for it shall be given you in that same hour
what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak,
but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in
you" (Matt. x. 19, 20; see also the parallel
passages : Mark xiii. 11 and Luke xii. i i, 12, and
xxi. 15). This passage our author sets aside, as
it would seem, for two reasons: (i) because it has
regard simply to forensic defences, and (2) because
it simply guarantees the suggestion of materials
for that purpose. It is difficult to see the force
of these reasons for leaving this passage out of the
induction. It does not follow from the fact that
the promise of the Spirit's aid was, in this instance,
restricted to particular occasions, that the character
of the aid promised may not shed some light upon
the subject of Inspiration. Indeed, our author's own
view of the character of the aid promised in this
particular case, although a very incorrect view,
would lead one to conclude that the passage is
pre-eminently fitted to shed light on the subject.
He regards the promise as guaranteeing to the
disciples the suggestion of proper materials for their
defence. Now if the Spirit could suggest to the
minds of men " the proper materials " for a legal
defence, surely it is not unreasonable to conclude
that He might suggest " the proper materials " for
a Gospel narrative, or for an epistle that was

INFERENCE FROM THE AID PROMISED. 247

intended to minister edification to the Church of
Christ throughout her militant career.

But the slightest examination of this passage will
sho\v that our author has no authority whatever
for the limitation of the aid promised to the
suggestion of the proper materials for the defence.
The disciples were not simply told to take no
thought (ri) what they should speak ; but they
were, besides, told to take no thought (770)9) how
they should speak ; and they were told the reason
why they should take no thought, or not make
themselves anxious, in regard either to the matter
or the manner of their speaking ; and the reason
given was, that it was not themselves that should
speak, but the Spirit of their Father who should
speak in them. Judging from this passage, then,
there can be no doubt that the inspiration, for
the occasion in question, extended to the language
of the defence, for the Spirit was to take charge
of both the rt and the 770)9, of both the matter and
the manner of the defence. Such language admits
of no interpretation save that assumed in the theory
of Verbal Inspiration. So all-pervading and thorough
was the aid promised, that the Spirit is represented
as speaking in them, ministering both the matter
and the form of their forensic deliverances. As
it is expressed (Luke xxi. 1 5), there were given
to them a month and wisdom which all their
adversaries were not able to gainsay or resist.

250 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

by the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth as the promised
Messiah, it was not only fit, but necessary, that they
should justify themselves by vindicating His Mes
sianic claims. This fact, however, but strengthens
the cause of the Verbal inspirationists ; for if, in
instances where the material to be employed was
indicated so clearly by the circumstances in which
the disciples were placed, our Lord regarded it
necessary to bestow upon them the gift of the Holy
Ghost to supply both the matter and the language
of their addresses, surely it is not reasonable to hold
that in furnishing the Church with the treasury of
saving truth contained in the Gospels, Epistles, and
other New Testament writings, a less measure of the
Divine agency was needed or vouchsafed. If they
needed a mouth, as well as wisdom^ on those occasions
where the course to be followed was made patent
by the providence of God, on what ground can it be
alleged that the latter alone, and not the former,
was needed in laying the foundations of the Church
of Christ, and in providing her with an infallible
rule of faith and practice, interspersed with historical
incidents, which should serve as illustrations of its
import and application, under all the varying cir
cumstances of her future development in all lands,
and through all time ? Beyond all question, a
Plenary Verbal Inspiration, supplying the disciples
of our Lord with such defences, carries with it and
compels the conclusion of a like full, unlimited, and

SUCH DEFENCES IMPLY VERBAL INSPIRATION. 251

efficient inspiration of the Apostles and Evangelists
in communicating to the Church the unutterably
glorious revelation of the New Testament.

This brief review of the actual defences conducted
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, vouchsafed
in the promise in question, is sufficient to show, that
Prebendary Row has made a grave mistake in
omitting it from his inductive inventory. By the
exclusion of this one text, as is now manifest, he
has shut out from the discussion a large portion of
the history of the Acts of the Apostles, the design
of which, to a very large extent, is to recount the
acts of the men to whom, under the agency of the
inspiring Spirit, was committed the inauguration of
the Gospel Dispensation. An induction involving
the omission of such passages is as censurable as it
is unscientific, and the argument based upon it is
chargeable with all the vice and fallacy of a narrow,
and an utterly inadequate, induction of the facts
upon which the determination of the question at
issue depends.

•

promises "constitute the whole of our Lord's promises
on the subject," he affirms that " it is evident that
the>- are inadequate to form the basis of a general

250 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

by the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth as the promised
Messiah, it was not only fit, but necessary, that they
should justify themselves by vindicating His Mes
sianic claims. This fact, however, but strengthens
the cause of the Verbal inspirationists ; for if, in
instances where the material to be employed was
indicated so clearly by the circumstances in which
the disciples were placed, our Lord regarded it
necessary to bestow upon them the gift of the Holy
Ghost to supply both the matter and the language
of their addresses, surely it is not reasonable to hold
that in furnishing the Church with the treasury of
saving truth contained in the Gospels, Epistles, and
other New Testament writings, a less measure of the
Divine agency was needed or vouchsafed. If they
needed a mouth, as well as wisdom, on those occasions
where the course to be followed was made patent
by the providence of God, on what ground can it be
alleged that the latter alone, and not the former,
was needed in laying the foundations of the Church
of Christ, and in providing her with an infallible
rule of faith and practice, interspersed with historical
incidents, which should serve as illustrations of its
import and application, under all the varying cir
cumstances of her future development in all lands,
and through all time ? Beyond all question, a
Plenary Verbal Inspiration, supplying the disciples
of our Lord with such defences, carries with it and
compels the conclusion of a like full, unlimited, and

SUCH DEFENCES IMPLY I'ERBAL INSPIRATION. 251

efficient inspiration of the Apostles and Evangelists
in communicating to the Church the unutterably
glorious revelation of the New Testament.

But the inadequacy of our author's induction can
not be fully estimated until it is seen that he makes
it the basis of his views in regard " to the nature or
extent of the Divine assistance afforded to the
human authors of the Bible." Alleging that these
promises "constitute the whole of our Lord's promises
on the subject," he affirms that " it is evident that
they are inadequate to form the basis of a general

252 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

theory as to the nature or extent of the Divine
assistance afforded to the human authors of the
Bible," and adds, that " all we can affirm is that it
was adequate to qualify His disciples for the work
which He directed them to perform, but it is im
possible to erect upon them a general theory of
Inspiration, or to determine how far an element of
human imperfection would be permitted to enter
into its record" (p. 456).

This is certainly a singular procedure on the part
of our author, who charges the advocates of the
Verbal theory with an abandonment of the inductive
method. He proposes to ascertain the Scripture
doctrine of the inspiration of the New Testament
writers by an induction of our Lord's promises. In
doing so, he leaves out of his induction some of
Christ's promises which ought to be regarded as
among the chief testimonies on the subject under
discussion, the omission of which involves the omis
sion of passages which furnish unequivocal proof of
an absolutely Plenary Verbal Inspiration, and, having
reduced his induction to a minimum, he proceeds to
draw his conclusion, not simply in regard to the
inspiration of the men to whom these promises were
made, but enlarges the scope of his inference into a
generalisation embracing the whole Bible ! Thus
from premises altogether inadequate to justify his
conclusion regarding the inspiration of the writers of
the New Testament, he deduces his doctrine re-

LIMITED PREMISS AXD CXIVERSAL COXCLL'SION. 253

specting the inspiration of the writers of both the
Old Testament and the New !

Nor does one's surprise at this extension of the
sweep of his conclusion beyond his first intention, and
beyond all warrant furnished by his limited induction,
suffer abatement, but rather the reverse, when it is
found, on the very next page, that he represents the
Scriptures of the Old Testament as entitled to rank
higher on the scale of inspiration than those of the
New. "It is also worthy of remark," he says, " that
any equivalent to the formula, 'Thus saith the Lord,'
with which the prophets of the Old Testament
introduce their utterances, is only found on one or
two occasions in the pages of the New" (p. 457).
Surely if the Scriptures of the Old Testament arc to
be thus differentiated from those of the New in
regard to the degree of their inspiration, and if the
formula, " Thus saith the Lord," be the index to the
degree of the differentiation, it cannot be scientific
to classify them both under the one category and
determine that category by New Testament testi
monies, which, save in one or two instances, fall
short of this formula. On the question thus raised
respecting the respective claims of the two Testa
ments, enough has been said already to show that,
in the estimate of the New Testament writers them
selves, their writings stood upon a footing of perfect
equality with those of the Old. Such was their
estimate, and if we are to judge by her treatment

254 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

of these writings, such has been the estimate of the
Christian Church in Apostolic times and ever since.
The people of God have ever regarded the New
Testament Scriptures as part and parcel of the one
Spirit-inspired record, and looked upon them, not
only as entitled to all the reverence due to the Law,
the Prophets, and the Psalms, but as furnishing a
Divinely authoritative key to unlock their mysteries.
The only effect of such invidious comparisons as our
author has instituted, if well founded, would be to
shake all confidence in the Scriptures of both Testa
ments.

Touching the assertion (p. 457) that "any equi
valent to the formula, ' Thus saith the Lord,' with
which the Prophets of the Old Testament introduce
their utterances, is only to be found on one
or two occasions in the pages of the New," there
need be no hesitation in making the counter-asser
tion, that language equivalent to this " formula " is
of frequent occurrence, whilst language implying all
that it claims gives character to the New Testament
record. Let the following instances suffice as
specimens : " They were all filled with the Holy
Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as
the Spirit gave them utterance " (Acts ii. 4). Peter's
reference in this chapter to the prophecy of Joel
will serve as a sufficient rebuke to our author's
attempt to place the Old Testament above the New.
Joel's prophecy, as interpreted by Peter, reverses

EQUIVALENTS 01- " THUS SAITII THE LORD." 255

completely our author's estimate, and places the New
Dispensation above the Old in regard to the copious
ness of the effusion of the Spirit and the numerical
extension of the gift of prophecy among the servants
and handmaidens of the Lord. As instituting a
like comparison, the following may be adduced : " If
the ministration of death, written and engraven in
stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel
could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for
the glory of his countenance ; which glory was to
be done away : how shall not the ministration of
the Spirit be rather glorious ? " (2 Cor. iii. 7, 8).

Such language to such a church, possessing the
spiritual gifts described in his first epistle (chap.
xii.~, or to any church in Paul's day, could convey
no other impression than that, in his estimation, the
New Dispensation stood pre-eminently distinguished
above the Old in regard to spiritual endowments.
In the second chapter of his first epistle to this
same church, we find one of the many New Testa
ment equivalents to the formula, " Thus saith the
Lord," on the absence of which our author places
so great reliance. After speaking of the source and
channel of the doctrines lie preached, the Apostle
says : " Which things also we speak, not in the
words which man's wisdom tcachcth, but which the
Holy Ghost tcachcth, comparing" (cnry/cpu/o^Te?,
interpreting, explaining) " spiritual things with spirit
ual " — interpreting the things of the Spirit in or

256 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

by the words of the Spirit. Here is certainly a
full equivalent to the formula in question, and one
which expressly teaches the doctrine which our
author rejects, for the claim advanced is, that the
words employed in the communication of the
mysteries revealed by the Spirit were words which
were not taught by the wisdom of man, as in the
schools of the rhetoricians, but by the Holy Ghost
Himself. This passage, moreover, demonstrates the
rashness of the author in basing an argument upon
the frequency or infrequency with which such
expressions as " Thus saith the Lord " occur in the
New Testament. Were there no other expressions
or formulae than this to be found in the writings of
the Apostle, it would of itself be quite sufficient
to establish the claim of a Plenary Verbal Inspiration
for all that the Apostle uttered in communicating
these mysteries to the Church of God.

LECTURE X.
Tin. ULTIMATE GROUND OF FAITH IN THK

SCRIITURFS AS THK WORD OF GOD.

IT AYJXG established, from the testimony of the
1- Scriptures themselves, the doctrine of Plenary
Verbal Inspiration, and having met such objections to
that doctrine as merit notice, it only remains that the
question respecting the ultimate ground of our faith
in the Scriptures as the word of God be considered.
The true doctrine on this vital question is very
clearly and fully set forth in the Westminster
Standards, as follows : —

" The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which
it ought to be believed and obeyed, depcndcth not
upon the testimony of any man or church, but
wholly upon God (\vlio is truth itself), the Author
thereof ; and therefore it is to be received, because
it is the word of God.

" \Yc may be moved and induced by the testimony
of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of
the Holy Scripture, and the heavcnliness of the
matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of
the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of

258 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the
full discovery it makes of the only wray of man's
salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies,
and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments
whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be
the word of God ; yet, notwithstanding, our full
persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and
Divine authority thereof is from the inward work
of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the
word in our hearts" (chap. i. § § IV. and V.).

1. It will be seen at once that while the West
minster divines attach importance to the testimony
of the Church, and regard it as fitted to lead us to
entertain for the Scriptures " an high and reverend
esteem," they are careful to reject the Romish
doctrine, that the Scriptures derive their authority
from the Church's testimony. This assertion of the
dependence of the Scriptures for their authority
upon the testimony of the Church is a fundamental
error of the Papacy. It reverses the relation of the
Church to the word of God, making the word
the creature of the Church, whereas the Church is
begotten through the instrumentality of the word.

2. It is also to be observed, that while the West
minster divines regard the internal evidences pre
sented in the Scriptures themselves as abundantly
proving them to be the word of God, they, never
theless, ascribe " our full persuasion and assurance
of the infallible truth and Divine authority thereof"

LEE'S CRITIQUE ON WESTMINSTER DOCTRINE. 259

to " the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing
witness by and with the word in our hearts."

This is a well-balanced, scholarly, judicial, and
eminently Scriptural exhibition of the evidences
whereon Protestants base the claims of the writings

of the Old and New Testament to be regarded and
treated as the very word of God. It excludes no
legitimate class of evidence, it embraces all the
sources of information, whether internal or external,
it attaches all due weight to each, and it reserves
for the Holy Spirit that prerogative of effectual
witness-bearing without which no man can sec, or
enter, the kingdom of God.

This latter clement is vital to the discussion of
the doctrine of Inspiration, as it is also a funda
mental doctrine of the economy of redemption. It
may serve to bring out the truth and importance
of this doctrine all the more fully and distinctly, as
well as to indicate its proper position in the chain
of evidence, if we consider the objections advanced
by Dr. Lee to the foregoing statement of it by the
Westminster divines. " The fundamental defect,"
Dr. Lee remarks, " of this mode of upholding
inspiration, appears to consist, not in the conception
itself, but in the place assigned to it in the chain of
Christian evidences, when employed to prove and
not to confirm — when addressed to the judgment
of the understanding, not to the affections of the
heart. If offered as the sole or cren leading proof t

260 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

we scarcely feel surprise at its rejection by the
sceptic or the unbeliever. To the intellect of such
persons the alleging such a fact as proof must be
absolutely unintelligible. As well might any of us
discourse with the blind upon the varieties of colour,
or a being of some higher order offer to our minds
a new idea for the reception of which the proper
sense was wanting. The Bible must be recognised
as Divine before such a witness can be called in
confirmation of previous evidence. But to the
Christian, who, with willing mind and humble ac
quiescence, accepts the Scriptures as the word of
God, this testimony of the Holy Spirit is a precious
treasure. . . . The Spirit who breathes the principle
of Christian life into the being of man produces,
as we read the words of the sacred writers, this
recognition of His own former agency ; and uncon
sciously, like the statue of ancient story, the soul
makes symphony when the ray touches it from
above" ("Lee on Inspiration," Lect. I. p. 33).

It will be observed that Dr. Lee does not object
to the doctrine of the testimony of the Spirit by
which, as we read the words of the sacred writers,
He intimates His recognition of His own former
work and attests it to our hearts. In regard to
this most important truth he holds the very same
doctrine as is taught in the passages which he cites
for criticism from the Confession of Faith. The
only point on which he differs from the Westminster

ESTIMATE OF EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 261

divines is in regard to the place assigned to this
species of evidence in establishing the Divine in
spiration of the Sacred Scriptures. According to
Dr. Lee, " the Bible must be recognised as Divine,
and the man become a Christian, before such a
witness can be called in confirmation of previous
evidence " ; according to the Westminster divines,
the previous evidence, although sufficient to prove
the Bible to be the word of God, does not ingcncratc
full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth
and Divine authority thereof. This persuasion and
assurance arise, they hold, from " the inward work
of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the
truth in our hearts."

A passage from Hooker's " Ecclesiastical Polity "
(book iii. chap. 8), which Dr. Lee quotes, as a motto, on
the flyleaf of his second lecture, expresses accurately
his idea, viz., " Scripture tcachcth us that saving
truth which God hath discovered unto the world
by Revelation, and it prcsumeth us taught other
wise that itself is Divine and sacred." In another
part of the same book, Hooker's doctrine on this
point is given with greater fulness, as follows :
" Albeit SS. do profess to contain in it all things
which arc necessary unto salvation, yet the mean
ing cannot be simply of all things which are
necessary, but all things which are necessary in
some certain kind or form ; as all things that are
necessary and either could not at all or could not

262 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

easily be known by the light of natural discourse ;
all things which are necessary to be known that
we may be saved ; but known with presupposal
of knowledge concerning certain principles, whereof
it receiveth us already persuaded, and then instructeth
us in all the residue that are necessary. In the
number of these principles, one is the sacred
authority of Scripture. Being therefore persuaded
by other means, that the Scriptures are the oracles
of God, themselves do then teach us the rest and
lay before us all the duty God requireth at our
hands as necessary to salvation."

The question here raised, it will be seen, is a very
important one. It is, in fact, one of the principal
questions between Protestants and Romanists. It
is thus stated by Turretine (" DE SCRIPTURA," quaest.
vi. th. 9) : " Cur, seu propter quid, credamus
Scripturam esse verbum Dei, seu quo argumento
praecipue utatur Spiritus Sanctus ad persuadendam
nobis Scripturae Divinitatem. An testimonio seu
voce ecclesiae : An vero notis et criteriis ipsi
Scripturae insitis ? " The question is reduced to
this : Does the Bible contain within itself proofs of
its Divine origin, or must we be taught otherwise,
as Hooker and Dr. Lee allege, that itself is Divine
and sacred ? The expression " otherwise " here
employed by Hooker, and by his quotation of it
endorsed by Dr. Lee, shows very clearly that the
evidence to which they refer is external to the

f>A'. I. HE'S rOSIT/O.V rKOl'F.D L'N.^C Kl m'KAI.. 263

Scripture itself, ami, therefore, warrants the con
clusion, that the doctrine inculcated by both is,
that it is by external testimony that men are
brought to believe that the Scriptures are the word
of God, and that through this species of testimony
a man is led to accept the Bible as the word of
God with the faith of a Christian.

The only argument advanced in support of this
position by Dr. Lee is an objection founded upon
an alleged analogy between the case of a blind man
listening to a discourse on colours and that of a
sceptic or an unbeliever listening to an argument in
support of inspiration from the testimony of the
Holy Ghost. On this objection it may be remarked :
i That it is undoubtedly true that sceptics and un
believers arc as incompetent to discern spiritual
things as blind men are to discern distinctions of
colour. The natural man, that is the man in his
natural estate, unregcnerated by the Holy Spirit,
can neither receive n<>r know the things of the
Spirit of God fi Cor. ii. 14,. " Kxccpt a man be
born again, he cannot sec the kingdom of God "
(John iii. 3). On this point there is no room for
dispute where the authority of the Sacred Scriptures
is recognised. 2. This clearly revealed truth, a
truth accepted by Dr. Lee, and which he holds
equally with the Westminster divines, does not
warrant the inference, that there is no use in dis
coursing to men in their natural estate about the

264 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

things of the Spirit. The analogy on which this
writer relies does not hold further than the fact of
the incapacity. In this particular, physical blindness
and spiritual blindness agree, but here the analogy
ends. All men hold themselves responsible for
their blindness and hardness of heart in regard to
the things of the Spirit; no blind man holds him
self, nor do others hold him, responsible in regard
to the apprehension of objects which can be
cognised only by means of the organs of vision.
3. The Scriptures do not recognise the legitimacy
of the inference which our author draws from the in
capacity of the sceptic and the unbeliever. While pro
claiming and emphasising the sinner's incapacity, they,
nevertheless, proclaim to him the very truths which
they represent as beyond his powers of apprehension,
and affirm his responsibility in relation to them.

It is, indeed, hard to imagine two positions more
thoroughly antagonistic than the one taken by Dr
Lee and that taken by the word of God in regard
to the place to be assigned to this species of
proof in the chain of the Christian evidences. lie
argues, from the natural blindness of men in regard
to the things of the Spirit, the folly of address
ing to them this species of proof, while the
Scriptures find in this estate of blindness to the
things of the Spirit the necessity of the Spirit's
testimony. So prominently is this doctrine pre
sented in Scripture that it is one of the leading

PROPER USE Of- EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 265

truths of the economy of redemption. The Spirit
is promised in connection with the whole work of
conviction, conversion, regeneration, and sanctifica-
tion. It is by His agency men arc born again, and
it is by His agency the redeemed shall be raised
from the dead and clothed with immortal bodies
bearing the image of Christ's glorified humanity.
The Scriptures do not introduce the agency of the
Spirit after the sinner has discovered, or has been
informed by some man or church, that the Bible is
the word of God, leaving it to Him to confirm the
faith thus ingencrated. On the contrary, they re
present Him as the Agent by whom men hitherto dead
in trespasses and sins arc quickened into spiritual life
and brought to sec and enter the kingdom of God.

If our author simply meant to take the ground
taken by Dr. Chalmers in his prelections on Butler's
"Analog}'," there could be no objection to his teaching.
If he meant to say that in dealing with sceptics and
unbelievers generally, there is a legitimate field for
arguments which may reconcile such men to a
patient hearing of the Christian evidences ; or if,
further, the position were that one may legitimately
array before unbelievers the external evidences of
the Divine origin of the Scriptures in order to pre
pare them for the examination of the internal
evidences, there would be no need to challenge the
doctrine or to enter a defence. But when the
ground is taken, with Hooker, that the Scripture

266 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

presumcth us to be taught otherwise that itself is
Divine and sacred, and that the sinner, through this
teaching or in some other way not indicated by the
author, becomes a Christian, accepting with willing
mind and humble acquiescence the Scriptures as the
word of God, it must be manifest that the position
is in direct antagonism with some of the most
important doctrines of Revelation touching the estate
into which the Fall brought mankind and the agency
whereby the Gospel of Christ effects their deliverance.
The position taken is that a man can become a
Christian the eyes of whose understanding have
never been enlightened by the Spirit to apprehend
the saving truths of the Divine word. How, or in
what respects, such a Christian differs from the
natural man whose inability is so clearly taught in
Scripture, would certainly be difficult to define.
There is no middle ground, nor half-way covenant,
between that occupied by the natural man described
by the Apostle (i Cor. ii. 14) and that occupied by
the spiritual ; nor is there any efficient mode of
translating the natural man into the estate of the
spiritual, except by the renewal of the Holy Ghost,
who acts, in the case of adults, in connection with,
and correlatively to, the truths of God's word.

4. This relation of the Spirit's agency to the
word of God necessarily ex:ludes the doctrine
of Hooker, reaffirmed by Dr. Lee. If the work of
the Spirit in the conversion of men has reference,

THE ll'OA'f) A/.OXE HIE SPIRITS SUVA'/). 267

not to any outside testimony, by whomsoever borne,
but to the word itself, it must follow that the Scrip
ture does not presume that we have been " otherwise
taught that itself is Divine and sacred," or that we
have been made Christians prior to the testimony
of the Spirit *' bearing witness by and with the truth
in our hearts." It is not the testimony of the
Church regarding the authenticity and genuineness
of the word, but the word itself, that is represented
as the sword of the Spirit.

5. The Scriptures teach that this instrument of
the Spirit is adequate to the task. They represent
it as quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged
sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul
and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and affirm
that it is a discerncr of the thoughts and intents
of the heart (lleb. iv. 12). They tell us that the
law of God is perfect, and so perfect that it " converts
the soul ; that the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple ; that the statutes of the
LORD are right, rejoicing the heart ; that the com
mandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the
eyes" (Psalm xix. 7, 8).

6. The obstacles which lie in the way of the
reception of the word by men are such as cannot
be removed by any other instrumentality or agency.
These are the darkness of the understandings and
the hardness of the hearts of men. Such obstacles
cannot be removed save by the agency of the Spirit.

268 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION.

To ascribe such achievement to anything outside
the Divine record witnessed to by the Holy Spirit
in the heart, is to give the glory of salvation to man
and not to God.

7. Hence it is a historical fact that external
testimony, even when that external testimony con
sisted of miracles, failed to produce faith. The
history of the miracles of the Old Testament and
the New, warrants this conclusion, and it is confirmed
by Christ Himself, who claimed for Moses and the
Prophets an evidencing power above that of the
resurrection of the dead (Luke xvi. 31).

8. It is, of course, confirmatory of all this, that
men are found to pass from a state of scepticism
and unbelief without any external testimony or any
argument on the subject of the Christian evidences.
It has often occurred that men who did not believe
the Bible to be the word of God have been con
vinced of the validity of its claims under sermons
which never touched the question of the evidences.

9. It is a significant fact, and one which should
be regarded as conclusive in this discussion, that
the Scriptures demand the immediate acceptance
of their teaching from all who read them or hear
them read. (See " The Way of Life," by Dr. Charles
Hodge.) The ground on which they base this
demand is never anything outside the Bible itself,
such as the official status or ecclesiastical authority
of the person who advances it on their behalf.

THE REVELATION SELF-EVIDENCING. 269

10. The reasonableness of this demand lies in
the self-evidencing character of the revelation itself.
The case is precisely analogous to that presented
in the revelation of the being and attributes of God
made through the medium of His works. Men arc
held responsible for not discovering the invisible
things of Him from the things which are made,
even His eternal power and Godhood, irrespective
of all collateral testimony or argument ; and, in
like manner, they are held responsible for behold
ing in Christ the brightness of the Divine glory
and the express image of the invisible God, though
no confirmatory testimony had ever been heard
of. The justice of the Divine procedure in hold
ing men responsible in the latter case is manifest,
as in the person and work of Christ there is given
the highest and clearest manifestation of God. He
that has seen Christ has seen the Father ; and if,
on seeing Christ, he has not seen the Father, the
reason is not to be found in any deficiency in the
manifestation, but is to be sought in the moral
aversion and spiritual blindness of the man himself.
There is not an argument wherewith the atheist
may be confounded and condemned which docs not
gather tenfold force to the confusion and condemna
tion of him who shuts his eyes and hardens his
heart against the higher revelation of God made
in the person and work of His beloved Son.

CONCLUSION.

IN substance and in form, then, the Bible is
Divine. The Spirit of God has determined its
matter and fashioned its mould. It is true it
contains historical statements recounting incidents
enacted before the eyes of the narrators, or which
came to their knowledge through the ordinary
channels of information, and references to the
phenomena of the heavens and the earth which are
not such as to require supernatural Revelation, but
which are within the compass of human competency.
These facts, however, do not invalidate the doctrine
advocated in this book. Verbal inspirationists do
not hold, nor is it involved in the position they
undertake to defend, that the sacred writers placed
on record nothing save what they received by
Revelation. What they contend for, and insist on,
is, that the inspired writers committed nothing to
writing for the record of which they had not the
authority of the inspiring Spirit. This they hold
to be vital to the claims of the Scriptures to be
regarded as the word of God. The men whom the
Holy Spirit brought into being, and trained, and

CONCLUSION.

27'

endowed, for the execution of the momentous task
of furnishing, for all time, the Rule of Faith and
Practice, with its precepts, and principles, and sanc
tions, and historical illustrations, were not left by Him
at liberty to make choice of such materials as they
might think fit to employ. Whether the material
was of supernatural or of providential revelation, the
writer was under the instruction, and subject to the
will, of the Holy Spirit, in making use of it, and was
so guided, and moved, and controlled, that he
embodied in the sacred record nothing for which
he had not the Divine authorisation. The incidents
recorded embrace some of the most flagrant viola
tions of the law of truth, and purity, and righteous
ness, which have occurred in the history of our fallen
race ; but the record embracing them is, nevertheless,
Divine, as the writer was authorised by the Holy
Spirit to give them a place in the sacred narrative.
These Heaven-attested facts are important elements
in the record, as they serve to illustrate the verity
of man's fall and the depth of his depravity, and,
at the same time, give emphasis to the revelation of
the sovereign grace of Him who sent His only
begotten Son into such a world, not to condemn, but
to save. As the two themes of the Hible are the
Ruin and the Recovery of men, it was not only
befitting, but necessary, that the history of redemp
tion should depict and illustrate the Ruin, as well as
describe and glorify, by signal instances, the for-

272 CONCLUSION.

bcarance, and longsufTering, and abounding mercy
of our God. The historical facts illustrate the
doctrines of Sin and Grace, and are indispensable
in a narrative which claims to be a history of the
Ruin wrought by the one and of the Deliverance
wrought by the other.

And what is true of the matter and substance of
the Revelation is equally true of the mould and
form employed in the communication of it. Care
ful of the substance, the Spirit was careful also of
the form. Having prepared His agents and gifted
them with those personal characteristics which were
necessary to give to the record the variety required
by the laws of testimony, He took possession of
their entire powers, thus conferred, and used them
in accordance with the laws of their respective
mental constitutions. Of the mode in which the
Divine Spirit operated upon the minds of the agents
honoured by Him with such high commission, no
one presumes to speak ; nor do verbal inspira-
tionists base their conclusions upon any a priori
assumptions. The ground taken by all intelligent
advocates of the doctrine is, that the Scriptures
alone are the only reliable source of information on
this subject, and that their teaching in regard to it
is to be ascertained in the same way as their
teaching in regard to the doctrines of Regeneration,
Justification, Sanctification, or any other doctrine
within the compass of the analogy of the faith.

CONCLUSION, 273

Proceeding on these principles, which are the only
legitimate principles for our guidance in this inquiry,
the only possible conclusion is, that the Bible is
what it claims to be — the Word of God — a
Divinely determined record, whose contents have
been selected by the Holy Ghost, and recorded, " not
in the words which man's wisdom tcachcth, but in
the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth." Such
is the only doctrine of Inspiration which can bear
philosophic scrutiny, or appeal, with any hope of
success, for support to the Bible itself, as it is the
only doctrine in harmony with the Spirit's agency
within the sphere of an applied redemption.

In advocating this high estimate of the word of
God which abideth for ever, one cannot but feel that
he is in sympathy with Him whose name is the Word
of God, whose testimony respecting it (Matt. v. iS)
is, that " till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled." In this verdict Prophets (Isa. xl. 6-8)
and Apostles (i Peter i. 24, 25) unite, setting the
incorruptibility and immortality of the word in
contrast with the evanescence of earthly things and
the short-lived glory of man. " All flesh is as grass,
and the glory of man as the flower of grass. The
grass withereth, and the flower thereof fadeth away :
but the word of the Lord cndurcth for ever."

INDEX.

Alfonl's (Dean) objection to Verbal
Inspiration examined. 183-188.

Analogy between natural and su
pernatural revelation, 269.

Apocrypha recognised by the Church
of England. 80, 81.

Apo>tle Peter's account of the in
spiration of the Old Testament
prophets. 149-151.

Apo>tles' estimate of their own
writings, 123-128.

Apostolic claims sanctioned by
miracles, 128, 129.

Arnold'-^ (Matthew) critique on
Calvinism, 3, 4.

Baptism, infant, not dependent on

Tradition, 78, 79.
Baronius on the Romish Rule of

Faith as quoted by Lieberman,

37- .

Butlers (Bishop) concessions re
garding corruptions of text ex
amined, 211-215; l'-° an'l 'ibuse
of the principle of his analogy,
216-218.

Calvin's attitude towards the ancient
creeds. 78.

Chalmers (Dr.) distinguishes Reve
lation from Inspiration, 94 ; on
the relation of external evidence

to our faith in the Scriptures as

the word of God, 265.
Charteris (Dr.) on Inspiration, 156-

163.
Christ, inspiration of, predicted,

113. 114 ; claims this prediction as

applying to Himself, 114-116;

S)roofs of His inspiration in the
look of the Revelation, 117. 118.
Coleridge's misconception examined,

171-174.
Cousins' definition of Mysticism,

26.
Creation, perfection of. held by

Humboldt and Tyndall as against

Moleschott, Haeckel, Spencer,

and Mill, 218, 219.
Credibility explained, 1 1.

Etymology modified by usage. 03,
94.

Faith dependent upon knowledge
of fact, not upon knowledge of
mode, 10.

Farrar's (Canon) critique on (lala-
tians iii. 16, 143. 144 ; contradicted
by the Talmudists, 145. 146.

Flint (Professor l\.) on the trust
worthiness of our senses, 20-24.

276

II. M.

Ilagenbach's " History of Due- Magistrate, authority of, in spiritual

trine.'' 79. imtteis recog.iised by Chinch of

Hill's (Dr.) theory of Inspiration of Kn^land. 81.

degrees examined, 178, 1 70. Mark proved to be a prophet, 131-

I lodge's (Dr. Charles) defu.ition of 135-

Mysticism, 27. Martensen's critique on the attitude

Hooker's "Ecclesiastical Polity" of the Lutheran and Reformed

and the ground of faith in Scrij - churches toward (ecumenical

ture, 261", 262. tradition, 75-77.

Huxley's (Professor) Belfast address Mill's (John Stuart) definition of

in 1874, 21. matter. 20.

estimate of the character of

Jesus as revealed in the Gospels,

Illumination, its subjects, objects, 109. no.

and extent. 97. - anti-teleological dilemma

Infallibility conditioned on Inspira- examined, 225. 226.

tion, 90-92. Miracles, their relation to doctrine,

Inspiration, Dr. Hill's theory of 129.130.

degrees of, exam ned. 178. 179. Moehler's definition of Tradition,

Inspiration, mode of, inscrutable; 44,45.

result clearly revealed, 272. Mysticism, how distinguished from

Inspiration not dictati-m, 167, 168. Rationalism and Inspiration, 28,

Inspiration of < >ld Testament im- 29.

plied in inspiration of New. 136. Mystics, their proof-texts misinter-

Inspiration. Verbal, as distinguished preted, 33.

from Plenary, 97, 98 ; arguments Mystics helpless in dealing with

in support <>f Verbal Inspiration, errorists, 35.

98, 112, 136, 163.

Inspiration, Verbal, Dean Alford's •

objection to, 183-188. Parker's (Theodore) Rationalism, 5.

Inspiration, verbal theory of, form- Prophets, their mission tested by

ally stated in Scripture. 240. 241. their doctrine, 130.
Inspiration, verbal tluory of, sus
tained by the character of the ^'

Pentecostal gifts, 241-245. , Ouakers, the orthodox, hold the

fundamental truths of Christianity,
29, 30.

Knowledge of Cod revealed in ex- Ouakers hold that the Church in

ternal nature, I, 2. apostolic times was in all respects

Knowledge of God revealed in the the model for all time, 31.

moral constitution of man. 1,2.

Rationalism in conflict with facts,

I.ee(I)r.) on Inspiration of Holy 6; in conflict with the idea of

Scripture. 95. faith. 7 ; makes human reason

>f nature to be tested by supreme, 7, 8 ; limits salvation to

the wise, 8 ; assumes an unscien-

-.<-•! roved to be a prophet, 131- tific condition of faith, 9.

'35- , Rationalists classified, 5.

Reason judges of the evidence of
Divine authority claimed for
Scripture, 12-15 • >s exercised in
the interpretation of it, 15 ; and
in systematising and harmonising
its doctrines, 16.

Revelation, doctrines of, not sub
ject to the limitations of human
rvns >n, 122. 123.

Rites and ceremonies, power to
institute, claimed by Church of
England. Si. 85.

Romish allegation respecting lost
books of Scripture places that
church in a dilemma, 87-90.

Romish ecclesiology unscriptural,
68-74.

Row's (Prebendary) quotation from
Rousseau, 109 ; his estimate of
the Gospel narratives, 110; his
lecture on Inspiration inconsist
ent with this estimate. lio-
112; his comment on I Corin
thians vii. examined, 189-199 ;
his comment on Genesis i. ex
amined, 200-205 » n's views on
Scripture chronology, 206-208 ;
his views on Hebrew genealogy,
208 210; his concession to Mill
examined, 225, 226 ; he confounds
Verbal Inspiration with dictation.
226, 227 ; he concedes what is
subversive of his argument, 228,
229 ; he gives an incorrect ac
count of the solutions proposed
by verbal inspirationists, 233, 234;
his induction of Scripture passages
inadequate and misleading. 241-
245 ; his as-ertion respecting the
formula " Tims sailh the Lord "
examined, 2^4-256.

277

Senses, the, recognised in matters

of faith, I -20.
Style, diversity of, no objection to

the verbal theory, 175-178.

Tradition and doctrines based there
on by Church of Rome, 39. 40;
reasons why Rome has recourse to
Tradition, 44 ; arguments against
Tradition, 46-64.
i Tradition and the Fathers, 52, 53.

Tradition and development, 46-55

Tradition subverts the authority of
Scripture and requires an inter
preter, 63. 64.

Trent, Council of, and Tradition,

^46.

Timeline on the testimony of the
senses. 25 ; on the ground of
faith in the Scriptures as the word
of God, 262.

I'ltramontanism and Gallicanir.m,
66.

Vatican Council, 1870. 66 ; decision
of, places Romanists in a dilemma,
74-

V.'esl minster divines on the ground
of <AII faith in Scripture. 13. 14,
257, 258.

\\irl s " Hriti.sh Spy '' quoted, 109.

iratson, & Vincy, Limited, London and Aylcsbury.

*\^HODDER AND STOUGHTON'S
RECENT PUBLICATIONS.

NEW WORK BY DR. R. W. DALE, OF BIRMINGHAM.

LAWS OF CHEIST FOR COMMON LIFE.

Second Thousand, Price 6s.
CONTENTS.

Every-day Business a Divine Calling — The Sacredness of Property —
The Christian Rule of Justice — The Forgiveness of Injuries— Temperance
— Judging Others — Courtesy and the Spirit of Service— Sympathy —
The Grace of Christ a Law of Conduct — Anxiety about the Future —
Family Life — Political and Municipal Duty — The Moral Precepts of
Christ — Christian Worldliness — Sowing and Reaping — The Universal
Sovereignty of Christ — On Obeying Christ — An Ethical Revival.

" We have here clear and vigorous style, masterly grasp of subject, apt and
forcible illustration, shrewd insight into human character, strong and healthy views of
life."— Lite rary World.

" Sound sense and wholesome Christian teaching conveyed in pure, idiomatic, and
forcible English." — S:otsnian.

"This handsome volume contains some of the bravest and truest ethical discourses
of our own or any age."' — Sheffield Independent.

" One of the most devout, spiritual, godly books we have ever read." — Church
Bells.

" It consists of discourses on every-day business, and, we need not say, is marked
by keen penetration and great sagacity, as well as by great lucidity and literary
beauty. It is a rade iiu\um for the common ways of \\te."—l>ritish Quarterly
Review.

"This volume excellently well bears out its title. The author gives wise and
manly counsel."— Literary Churchman.

" This is a most valuable practical treatise on the subject." — M'esleyan Methodist
Magazine.

" In the best sense they are sermons; they are manly, vigorous, healthy exposi
tions of practical religion." — Leeds Mercury.

"Wherever we look into Mr. Dale's book, we find proof and illustration of its
originality, sagacity, raciness, and penetration." — Christian World.

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Fourth Edition, 5*.

''The manly, fearless honesty of Mr. Dale's expositions demands the very highest
eulogy."— British Quarterly Review.

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. Its Doctrines and
Ethics. Second Edition, js. 6</.

The Spectator says : — " The terse and vigorous style, rising on occasion into a
manly and impressive eloquence, of which Mr. Dale is well known to be a master,
gives lucid expression to thought that is precise, courageous, and original."

THE JEWISH TEMPLE AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHURCH. A Series of Discourses on the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Sixth Edition, 6s.

NINE LECTURES ON PREACHING. Thir 1 Edition, 6,-.
WEEK-DAY SERMONS. New Edition, 3.1-. 6</.

"Mr. Dale is certainly an admirable teacher of Christian ethics. Aniuii^ the
occupants of the modern pulpit he is, perhaps, the greatest living successor uf the
Apoitle James. In this volume he appears at his best."— The Chnstian.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The rule of faith and the doctrine of inspiration"

See other formats